Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee stage on Bill 11.

Then in Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Labour. When that’s finished, I will call the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

In the Birch Room, Section C, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and child care.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 1:35 p.m.

The Chair: Attorney, did you want to introduce your staff before starting? Go ahead.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Joining me today with the COVID-19 Related Measures Act proposed amendments is Alex Stirling, legal counsel, policy and legislation division; Natalie Barnes, deputy supervisor, legal services branch; and Heather Brazier, executive director of policy and legislation, emergency management B.C.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: I probably should just confirm procedurally what I think the intentions are. The Attorney and I are engaged in the first eight sections of this bill, and it’s my understanding thereafter that the ministers responsible for the Clean Energy Act and, subsequently, the Motor Vehicle Act will appear to entertain any questions that exist with respect to those subsequent acts.

The Attorney is indicating that that is the case, and that that’s agreeable. I’m pleased to hear it.

The first section of the bill relates to extending an effective date of a piece of legislation that was passed back in July of 2020. It was that the COVID-19 Related Measures Act was passed in the wake of an Ombudsman’s report that levelled some criticism of the government for issuing orders under the Emergency Programs Act for which the Ombudsperson indicated the government didn’t possess the legal authority.

My recollection of that debate is that the Attorney General, speaking for the government, indicated a disagreement with that proposition and that position held by the Ombudsperson but then, secondly, said that the introduction of the amendments in what was then Bill 19 rendered that whole argument moot. In any event, I don’t propose to recover or to revisit all of those arguments and all of those issues that were canvassed in some detail back when Bill 19, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, was first introduced.

But maybe I should simply put this question insofar as section 1 purports to extend chronologically the time for which Covid-19 Related Measures Act orders granted will have effect.

Is it fair for me to suggest that as far as the Attorney General is concerned and the government is concerned, Bill 19, and the amended Emergency Program Act that it created, resolved definitively the question of paramountcy between the EPA and other statutes in favour of the EPA? Is that a fair synopsis?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Perhaps it goes without saying, but I do want to put on the record that government was of a different opinion than the Ombudsperson about the authority to pass orders. Obviously, as Attorney General I take the responsibility for government to act lawfully quite seriously. With that said, there was a difference of opinion. Obviously we had the belief, the understanding — and still do — that the orders were made lawfully.

As far as the Ombudsperson’s concern, as I understand it, was expressed, when the COVID-related orders were incorporated into the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, they converted from an order to statute and, therefore, would address the concern, as I understand it, stated by the Ombudsperson. Although, again, just noting that we did not agree on it, but it would address it.

With respect to paramountcy, there were provisions in the EPA that predated the pandemic that made it clear that orders made under the emergency powers act are, to the extent that they’re in conflict with the statute book, paramount over contradictory laws or provisions. That was also included in the CRMA, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, which I’ll refer to as CRMA throughout our discussion today. That was replicated in the CRMA legislation.

I will note that the CRMA change — one of them was to elevate a power that we believe lawfully existed with a single cabinet minister, the Minister of Public Safety, to cabinet as a whole, which was not a change in terms of the authority but was a change in terms of, in our opinion, additional oversight — that it was the executive council, the LGIC, rather than a single cabinet minister, exercising authority.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. I wasn’t trying to lead him on. I think that is confirmation of what I assumed the position of the government was. As I indicated a few moments ago, I’m not intending to rehash the arguments that were canvassed in detail at the time the original act was debated and passed back in July of last year.

What I will do, though, and it’s a nice segue from what the Attorney has just summarized for the committee, is ask for his response to the following proposition. The combination of what was Bill 19, COVID Related Measures Act, and the amendments that were made to the Emergency Program Act, particularly the creation of section 10.1, creates purposely broad, sweeping powers, exceptional powers that are to be exercised by the executive branch of government, without any involvement, debate or oversight by the legislative branch of government. I don’t say that and attempt to describe it as some kind of nefarious exercise, but that is the intention of what is now created and exists legislatively.

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: When the amendments were made to the emergency powers act, the intention of government was not to create a new authority exempt from legislative oversight. It was to convert an existing authority under the EPA, the emergency powers act — I’ll refer to it as EPA from now on — which was in the hands of a single minister, and give it to LGIC, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, rather than a single minister. So it wasn’t an intention to create a new authority.

Within that pre-existing act, it was the intention of the emergency powers act to allow government to respond in case of an emergency, when the Legislature was not able to assemble — to respond to an emergency and to make provisions for British Columbians as necessary. The power is intended to be exercised in a state of emergency when the Legislature is not able to come together, but it was a pre-existing power, not intended to be modified by the amendments to the EPA.

Now, there is meant to be, through modifications of the CRMA and the EPA, a new level of legislative reporting, which is that when government does introduce a new order under the EPA, or one of those orders is converted into a legislative instrument under CRMA, there needs to be a report to the Speaker with the intention that that would be distributed to the members of Legislature so that there was a reporting mechanism built in, which we believe would enhance — or at least was intended to — communication, transparency and, ultimately, accountability for orders that are made during an emergency.

M. de Jong: First of all, I was not, nor do I now endeavour to suggest that what the government was attempting to do with the introduction and passage of Bill 19 was create a new power. I think the committee understands the explanation, the rationale that the Attorney has offered. I think he has also acknowledged that it is….

What we are dealing with here is an extraordinary pow­er, one that pre-existed in the Emergency Program Act, and I suppose, in the earlier debate, analogies were drawn to earlier legislation federally — the War Measures Act — and those kinds of extraordinary powers that have existed that allow for the exercise of authority in ways that are different, the exclusive exercise of authority by the executive branch without the traditional types of oversight that exist by the legislative branch of government.

[1:50 p.m.]

The Attorney also talked about situations where the Legislative Assembly is unable to meet. I’m going to come to that. What I was hoping to do today, as we consider the extension of timelines to take account of the reality that we’re confronted by — and that is the ongoing pandemic, the ongoing state of emergency — is ultimately to pose some questions to the Attorney about what we have learned about the exercise of those powers and whether it is appropriate at this point to think about what we’ve learned and whether that would impact, going forward, the use of those powers. I’ll get to that in a few moments.

I wanted to acknowledge that emergencies and the use of emergency powers do always involve striking a balance between the need to respond quickly to an exceptional set of circumstances and the need to protect our traditional reliance and respect for the rule of law and the role of the legislative branch of government.

Here’s a question for the Attorney. I don’t want him to receive it as a form of criticism, necessarily, of the steps that the government has taken. But we are debating these provisions, and it is the job of the opposition to consider the use that may be made of the authorities and powers that are created, not just by the present government and not just in the present circumstances but the uses that might be made of those powers by future executive councils in circumstances that we can’t imagine today.

What would the Attorney say are the safeguards? He has alluded to one change that was made back in July that I expect he will point to as a safeguard. What are the safeguards against the unreasonable use of these extraordinary powers?

I expect that the Attorney will, for example, say: “Well, they are time limited.” That, of course, is the essence of the section that we are debating in this bill. It is an extension of that time for reasons that I think the committee and the House will ultimately be supportive of.

But what are the safeguards the Attorney would point to as protecting against the unreasonable use of these ex­traordinary powers? The timelines, the finite nature of the power, the courts, I suppose, but what else?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of different safeguards. The member is right. I would've pointed him to the fact that, rather than a single individual having authority, a single minister, that it has been elevated to cabinet, the authorities under the EPA, and that, by function, means that you would need to have an entire rogue cabinet as opposed to a single rogue minister, which is a safeguard.

But something that the member didn’t mention…. Although he did say that the courts are a safeguard — they are — but we’ve given the courts some tools for oversight of governments under section 10.1 of the amendments of the EPA. Informally, we’re calling them the proportionality and necessity tests.

So under section 10.1, you can only impose or use this authority if the benefit of the new measure is proportionate to the continued application of the existing law that it purports to amend or change. There has to be a proportionate benefit to the change that the authority is being exercised to implement. There has to be a benefit that is proportionate to just leaving the law alone as it is. That’s the proportionality test that the court could, on judicial review, determine; whether, in the court’s opinion, that benefit was in fact proportionate, or whether, perhaps, there was insufficient benefit to justify aggregating the existing law.

The second is the necessity test, as we’re calling it. The legislation says that it’s necessary to exercise this authority in order “to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of an emergency.”

[2:00 p.m.]

This again provides the court with an opportunity to say: “Okay, was it necessary for government to use the EPA to alleviate? Does it in fact have a prospect of alleviating or responding to or preventing negative effects coming from the emergency? Was it necessary?” The context for exercise of these authorities is that they can only be exercised if a state of emergency exists, which is another safeguard that may be so obvious that it goes without stating it, but I will say it.

Under CRMA, there is an additional safeguard. It is a tightening of the necessity test. The authorities under CRMA can only be used if the relevant incorporated order that becomes a statutory instrument is necessary to respond to the actual COVID-19 pandemic. So CRMA won’t be able to be used to respond to other emergencies that are not a COVID-19-related emergency.

Finally, under subsection 10.1(7), there are a couple of other, as we’re calling them, brakes on the authority. One is that you’re not allowed to shorten a time period under the EPA. Someone has an existing privilege under legislation to have a certain amount of time in order to file something, perhaps for a statute of limitation of some kind. You cannot shorten those time periods using an EPA power; you can’t increase fees using the EPA authorities — so more minor types of brakes on authority but some additional and important protections.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. He has pointed out two tests incorporated into the legislation: proportionality and necessity, which are relevant and are helpful and, I think, a partial response to the question I posed.

I suppose it goes without saying, though, that a cabinet, an executive council, that authorizes the orders that are the product of this legislation would have therefore turned their mind and concluded that the exercise of the extra­ordinary power through the order is both proportional and necessary. I guess the nature of my question is perhaps more procedural, in terms of who, if anyone, short of the courts — well firstly, the cabinet and then ultimately, I suppose, the courts — might have an opportunity to render an opinion around the questions of proportionality and necessity.

This is what brings me to, maybe, the heart of my question, as we stand here, 15 months into the pandemic and the state of emergency that presently exists. It’s this question that I have been posing to myself. I don’t pretend to have settled upon a definitive answer, but I think it is a relevant one to pose to the government and the Attorney General.

That is: should a government’s ability to override existing laws and rules and regulations change when emergency circumstances, giving rise to the state of emergency, extend over a greater period of time and the circumstances around that emergency change?

To particularize it to the situation we’re facing today — as the Attorney pointed out a few moments ago — in the early days of this pandemic, it wasn’t even clear if this assembly could meet. In fact, it held an extraordinary, truncated one-day session in March, I think, of last year, and that was it. No one was entirely certain how or when the assembly was going to be able to meet. In those circumstances, the ability of the executive council to respond to emerging circumstances necessarily had to function, had to exist, absent the traditional oversights of the legislative branch of government.

[2:05 p.m.]

That changed within a few months. By the summer of last year, the assembly was able to meet through the good work of a lot of people, including the Clerks and the staff in this building. We were able to meet and continue to be able to meet. Is there a role in those circumstances, and does the Attorney — not for the purposes of this bill; it’s obviously here in its present form — think there is merit in the suggestion that incorporating some modest measure of additional oversight by the legislative branch would be worthwhile?

What do I mean? What might that look like? The orders that are the product of this legislation are presently tabled with the Speaker in the Speaker’s office for distribution. Given the extraordinary nature of the powers being as­sumed by those orders, isn’t there some merit…? When we have moved beyond the crucible of the crisis to where this House can function reasonably normally, might not these orders be referred to a select standing committee for the opportunity to review, to ascertain and confirm that the tests of proportionality and necessity have been met?

Presumably, they would. The government that issued the orders would still maintain a majority on those committees. But if the Attorney has my point, when we move beyond the height or the initial stages of the crisis to where we are, for example, today, with a reasonably well-functioning parliamentary assembly, there is an argument to be made for providing the legislative branch with some opportunity to examine and comment upon these orders that, by definition, bestow extraordinary powers upon the executive branch.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the thoughtful question. There are a few different threads that could be followed here. One is the overall theme that maybe there are ways to do this better, in terms of emergency response, ways to incorporate the Legislature better, or oversight generally.

I can advise the member — and I think he’s aware, but I’ll put it on the record anyway — that emergency management B.C. and public safety is interrupted by the pandemic, ironically, but is doing a modernization of the emergency powers act. This act will be ultimately repealed and replaced with a modernized act. It’s a good opportunity for the member and others that have suggestions about how we can do things better to provide that feedback. I can assure the member he doesn’t need to write a letter. We have his points, and there are staff on the call that listen to his questions, so he doesn’t need to duplicate that effort.

With respect to the Legislature functioning now in a way that it didn’t in the early pandemic, the idea of the reports to the Clerk was that all members would get notice of all orders, and if there were concerns or a need for debate, certainly question period is an opportunity for raising points around debate and concerns, issues raised by members. Not to suggest that that’s better than what the member suggested, just to say that there are opportunities for those questions to be raised.

The overall theme of review of executive action in terms of emergency authorities certainly should be reserved for the courts. I say that noting that the member wasn’t necessarily suggesting that a committee would overrule the executive emergency order, but maybe it would provide an opportunity for debate, feedback, refinement, suggestion and so on. I did want to note that this scheme has been designed in a way intended that the courts would be providing that oversight.

With respect to this overall approach, there are some measures that began as COVID-related responses. We just wrapped up the municipal affairs bill. That started as emergency responses around how well government could respond in light of the pandemic, now brought in front of the House for debate and refinement in the form of a bill because these are things that we want to carry forward from the pandemic into the Legislature and ultimately into the statute book for the province and authorities for local governments. That transition from emergency authorities into permanent authorities where appropriate is happening through legislative debate.

[2:15 p.m.]

There are some changes that just don’t need to be permanent. One of our recent emergency orders was around the South Coast Transportation Authority not having to file their budget because their income and expenses are so bizarre that they’re still working their way through these kinds of things. So not having to hit the statutory deadline for their budget filing and being able to incorporate pandemic impacts — this isn’t something that we want to have be a permanent statutory change. It’s a temporary authority and one that we hope will not be necessary again.

For those temporary authorities, they are the ones that will not be coming back to this House in the same way that the municipal affairs changes would, the sort of legacies that we want to keep versus changes that are temporary just to respond to the emergency.

M. de Jong: I think it is a very valid point to observe that out of crisis of the sort we have experienced, some adjustments, some innovations are deemed appropriate to become permanent fixtures. The advent use of different technologies and authorizing those uses on an ongoing basis would be, I think, an appropriate example that I think the Attorney was looking for.

I was not — and he fairly pointed this out — suggesting in any way vesting in a legislative committee the authority to frustrate the exercise of executive branch powers. What I was and am suggesting is that over the life of an emergency, that emergency exists in different stages and im­poses different degrees of limitations on the abilities, or demands on the abilities, of governments to act. When we find ourselves where we are today, we all hope and presume, emerging from the darkest days of the pandemic, in those circumstances, finding a more direct role, more direct engagement for the legislative branch to comment upon and sometimes to diffuse some of the public pressures building….

The Attorney knows that over the course of the pandemic, there were times when public acceptance, public debate around the appropriateness of some of the orders that were issued by the government, boiled over. Providing a venue legislatively…. The Attorney said: “Well, when the House is sitting, we’ve got question period.” That may be the first time I’ve heard question period described as the ideal venue for a thoughtful conversation on just about anything, but if that has been the Attorney’s experience, then I applaud him for coming to that conclusion.

That aside, there may be an opportunity, through the legislative rewrite, to consider at some point…. I am not suggesting that, to use this example, March 17 would have been the ideal time to convene a legislative committee to provide some venue for additional discussion. But at some point, providing the legislative branch with an opportunity to consider some of these issues and provide comment, at least, on whether the tests of proportionality and necessity have been met or are adequately reflected in those extraordinary orders and the exercise of that extraordinary power would be appropriate.

I will let the Attorney comment, if he wishes, and then continue.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I won’t do the member the indignity of a straw man response to his point. You know, how dare he suggest that we, in the middle of the early days of the pandemic, assemble the whole Legislature. I understand quite clearly the member’s point, and I take his gentle chiding about question period as a venue for sober debate of serious emergency authorities as perhaps not the ideal venue.

I think he has a very important suggestion. I can assure the member that I will take his suggestion back. We certainly agree, to the extent it is possible, that even in a state of emergency, especially in a state of emergency where urgent action is needed, we work across party lines in a cooperative way, especially when the public needs reassurance that the measures are being taken for the appropriate reasons, namely to respond to an emergency. That could be a beneficial approach to addressing concerns.

I think there are some folks we would not…. Even if all the parties — which we did, through much of the pandemic — stood together and said these health orders were necessary, it would not be satisfactory for some individuals. But for others who may have some questions, it might be.

I take the member’s suggestion seriously. I can assure him that staff on the call have heard that as well. I don’t have an immediate response for him, but I have his point.

M. de Jong: In preparing for this discussion, I went to the Statutes of B.C. I went to Bill 19. The question I had at this stage of the pandemic and at this stage into the declaration of the state of emergency…. I was curious to know how many orders had been issued that fell within the ambit of the COVID-19 Related Measures Act or the Emergency Program Act, or any other pertinent piece of legislation for that matter.

What I found at the end of the bill was…. I did this on May 18, so executive council and ministerial orders on B.C. Laws as of May 18, 2021. It includes a lengthy list of various orders and regulations, but it also includes this caveat that this list may not be exhaustive.

Is there an exhaustive list? If a person wanted today to know how the executive branch has applied the powers contained within the COVID-19 Related Measures Act and the Emergency Program Act, is there a place that they can go for an exhaustive list of those orders?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of ways British Columbians can see this. The first and probably the most complete is the B.C. Laws website. There is a COVID section on that website. It has all of the regulations and orders made under the EPA and CRMA. It also includes any changes that were made under other enabling legislation.

As an example, there were changes made around the change fee that people pay on their car insurance if they’re not driving because of the pandemic. That was a change to the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation. So something like that is under this section as well. The changing of bylaws of various health regulatory bodies to allow vaccinations to be administered by different professions is also under this section. So it’s a very complete list.

On the COVID section of the B.C. government website, there is a justice sector section that has every report that has been made to the Speaker as a result of regulations and orders under the EPA and CRMA.

Then, finally, I’m advised that staff are working on a complete table for release to the public, intended to display all the orders with the in force dates under CRMA. CRMA is intended to step us down from the state of emergency so that everything doesn’t, as of the end of the state of emergency — all the orders — immediately come to a crashing halt, regardless of the consequences.

Some are phased out over time, so people have notice that when they hear that it’s the end of the state of emergency, they know they have 45 days that this authority will stay in force, because the end of the state of emergency is not a certain date. That gives people notice that that authority will be expiring. There will a table that is going to be produced for the public to have a quick reference around these authorities and when they’re going to be phased out under CRMA.

M. de Jong: I think the list I have is from the B.C. Laws. If the Attorney is indicating that there is a version of that list that doesn’t come with the caveat of “this list may not be exhaustive,” then that’s helpful to know. The one that I found states fairly explicitly that it may not be an exhaustive list.

If that’s not the case, if it is exhaustive, maybe they can remove that caveat. If there is another list that does represent a complete listing, then I’ll take that advice happily from the Attorney.

[2:30 p.m.]

I wondered about asking this next question, because on the one hand, it seems sort of remarkably oversimpli­fying a very complex period in our history, but it’s an extraordinary time and these orders represent the exercise of extraordinary powers. I’ll ask the question, in any event.

So 14 to 15 months after the declaration of a province­wide state of emergency, can the Attorney, with the assistance of his staff, indicate how many orders have been issued pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act and the Emergency Program Act? I was surprised by the number I saw listed, and as I said, my list purports not to be necessarily an exhaustive list. What information is the Attorney, with the assistance of his staff, able to offer about the number of orders that drew on the powers that we are debating in the legislation today?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to the B.C. laws — the completeness of the list — the reason for that caveat being there is that it can take a day or two for the website to update from activities in the Legislature. So the reference is meant simply to be guidance to folks to check, for example, the Hansard if you wanted a complete list. There is a bit of a lag there, so it may not be complete for that time period. For those who are particularly focused, detail-oriented, that list may be incomplete, but just because of that lag. Otherwise, it would be a complete list.

With respect to the different orders, there are three orders that are still under the EPA that have not been moved over to CRMA. These orders relate to, first of all, the protective measures, which are around tickets that would be issued for non-compliance with the public health orders. Those aren’t necessary after the state of emergency. They can expire at the end of the state of emergency. That’s not a problem. The same for the face coverings and the travel restrictions — all of those orders will expire immediately following the end of the state of emergency.

There are about 50 orders that have been ported over to CRMA. These are the orders that were made under the EPA but need to be stepped down over time following the end of the state of emergency.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful. I think the explanation around the time lag makes sense. To the extent that staff are listening, and I’m sure they are, they may want to make that point — that it takes time. In this case, of course, for reasons we’ve just discussed, it’s not the delay from the operations of the Legislature but the time it takes to get information from the executive branch published which would account for missing orders.

[2:35 p.m.]

That aside, I will assume the list is, therefore, a complete one, limited only by the few days’ delay it would take to get new orders added that have been issued by the cabinet.

When the Attorney was discussing with the House and the committee of the House back in July, he made a point, and has again during this discussion, of the transitional nature of some of these orders. He has emphasized the challenge that would result if all orders expired contemporaneous to, at the same time as, the state of emergency — that in some cases, that would be problematic. That’s one of the great rationales for the original act in the first place and for the time extension that section 1 provides for to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act to the end of this calendar year.

I was thinking back to the discussion the Attorney had back in July. He talked about some of the orders. He emphasized some of the orders that then were, I think it’s fair to say, front and centre in people’s minds. There was Ministerial Order M084 around the fair distribution of essential goods. M115 is the prohibition on unconscionable pricing.

There are too many orders for me to go through in this committee one at a time with the minister, so I’ve picked a couple that he referred to at the time the legislation was introduced and passed in July, because clearly, he and the government attached importance to those orders. Are those orders, the two that I have mentioned that would qualify for the need to continue…? Based on what the government and the Attorney know today about the state of circumstances, the state of play in our society, are those orders that the Attorney believes would need to continue beyond the expiration of the state of emergency?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Currently, there’s a review happening with all ministries through emergency management B.C. and through my office, my ministry, in terms of all orders that are currently under CRMA and whether they need to be continued past the end of the state of emergency. There are some…. I can provide, as examples to the members, orders that will not be ending at the end of the state of emergency.

Order M162 is item 17 of schedule 2 of CRMA. This deals with representation agreements and powers of attorney. Even when the state of emergency ends, we expect that there will be risks related to COVID and possibly, necessarily, public health orders that might restrict someone’s attendance at a hospital — for example, someone who is in an immunocompromised state.

We want to make sure that there’s enough time left be­tween the end of the state of emergency and the lapsing of this authority to do remote representation agreements or remote powers of attorney to be able to accommodate those public health restrictions, even after the end of the state of emergency. That order is proposed to expire 90 days after the end of the state of emergency.

Another example is Order M114, which is schedule 1, item 1 of CRMA. This allows people to attend strata property meetings electronically. It is proposed to expire on July 10, 2021. One of the reasons why this order will be extended past the end of the state of emergency is…. Our hope is that stratas will use the opportunity to modify their own bylaws if they want to allow remote meetings, because if it goes overnight, they might miss that window of opportunity to be able to change their bylaws to allow remote meetings to take place. There may still be restrictions — public health restrictions, for example — on meetings of 50-plus people after the end of the state of emergency. So we wanted to provide some space to hopefully accommodate that.

I hope those examples are illustrative, but the larger ans­wer to the member’s question is simply that that review with ministries about when these should expire is happening right now.

[2:45 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Is the Attorney General to make the pro­duct of that review — the report or the recommendations or, ultimately, the findings — public so that people will have knowledge? By that, I mean make it public in a complete form. I mean, there are a finite number of orders. Will that happen prior to the end of the state of emergency?

The Attorney has pointed to some orders. I think they are good examples. I might actually ask a question or two about those specific ones. I’m trying to get a sense, though, as to what the test will be. Again, almost a year ago the concern was about price gouging and the fair distribution of essential goods. It strikes me that that is no longer a concern, and that those orders — M084 and M115 — would lapse with the state of emergency. But if I’m wrong, the Attorney can tell me. Or maybe he’s at a point where he can only say: “I don’t know at this stage.”

But what kind of test? The essence of the bill is about providing a mechanism by which some of these orders can continue beyond the ending of the state of emergency, for up to the end of the calendar year. But what kind of test is going to be applied to determine…? The two examples the minister has given suggest to me that in the one case where there is perceived to be a lingering health issue that needs to be addressed, that would mitigate in favour of an extension beyond the ending of the state of emergency.

I hope that the Attorney catches the drift of what I’m looking for in terms of what will guide the decisions around the continuation or ending of these orders. Then secondarily, it would be helpful if people had the benefit of that information in advance, not piecemeal sometime thereafter.

Hon. D. Eby: Two parts to the member’s question. The first is how it will be publicized — the various dates.

This table that’s being prepared with all of the orders under CRMA — for public distribution, both online and otherwise as appropriate — will be the way that the public is notified about the various dates of expiry. Of course, they’re in the statute, but we want it in a more accessible format for people to be able to find it quickly on the government website.

[2:50 p.m.]

The member asked about the test, and I do have his point. The test is really identical to the overall test in the EPA. We talked about proportionality and necessity. So the question is, really: is it necessary to continue this to respond to the effects of the pandemic — that they’re going to continue past the end of this state of emergency?

For both of those orders that I went through, we do ex­pect effects related to COVID to continue past the end of the state of emergency, whether it’s a need for the remote execution of a representation agreement or a power of attorney because of a public health restriction related to visiting a hospital or with respect to a strata council that has more than 15 members wanting to hold a meeting in person but being restricted by a public health order that would prevent them from doing that.

The second is proportionality, of course. Continuing the order past the end of the state of emergency is…. The benefit is proportional to allowing the statute to continue in its original form.

The member had a specific question about the price-gouging protective order. It was section 115, which I, may­be, worded poorly. I made it sound like we were protecting price gouging.

The order, which was intended to respond to concerns about hoarding and price gouging in the early stages of the pandemic…. I’m advised by staff…. They have confirmed that the intent is to allow it to lapse with the end of the state of emergency. It would not be extended past the end.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. A couple of things that, then, flow from that. I’ll make this as a statement. I hope the Attorney, in the first part of what I’m going to say, will deem it appropriate to offer his thoughts.

My comment goes as follows. Extraordinary orders that were issued during the time of a state of emergency that went beyond the statutory authority or the provisions of existing statutes but were otherwise required and deemed proportional and deemed necessary…. In situations where the decision is made to continue those orders beyond the life of the actual state of emergency, there is — I would suggest — an increased threshold. There is a heightened threshold for necessity and proportionality. I hope the Attorney understands what I mean by that.

The rationale for the order, in the first place, was a state of emergency. Once that state of emergency ends, there is — I would suggest, and I would submit — a heavier burden. What I am concerned about is that there may be a prevailing attitude in some quarters that goes as follows: “Yes, the state of emergency is over. But out of an abundance of caution, we will maintain these extraordinary orders.”

I don’t think that’s the test. In some cases — I think the Attorney has pointed out — it will be possible to demonstrate a legitimate need and wisdom. I think the burden increases and, I would suggest, should increase following the ending of the state of emergency.

I’ll let the Attorney, if he wishes, comment on that. Then I think I have one more question on the matters we’ve been discussing here.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In CRMA, there is a specific statutory test, which is that the orders under CRMA — the statutory instruments incorporated under CRMA — must be necessary to respond to the effects of the pandemic. There are two distinct moments, obviously. One is the end of the state of emergency under the EPA. The other is the un­winding of and the relaxation of public health orders, and so on, related to COVID.

We do not expect, at the end of the EPA state of emergency, that public health orders related to COVID will also be wrapped up. We expect the state of emergency to end before that. Because of that, there will still be effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is what CRMA is all about. These measures must be necessary to respond to the effects. As soon as they aren’t, then they are no longer justified under the act.

To that end, of the approximately 50 orders that have been ported over into CRMA to become statutory instruments…. I’m advised by staff that about half of those, about 25, have expired either because they have a limitation date within the order itself, up until whatever date it was not renewed, or because it was then revoked through a subsequent regulatory amendment.

As society opens up again and as we begin the restart plan, all of these kinds of things…. As more people are vaccinated and as the numbers come down, what the member should see is that these orders are being pared back. From the original 50 that have been ported over to CRMA, down to about 25 and then the gradual reductions, as they’re no longer necessary to respond to the effects of the pandemic, which is the test.

The member is suggesting a heightened test. The test is embedded in the statute, in CRMA itself. The provision must be necessary to respond not to the state of emergency but specifically to the COVID-19 pandemic.

M. de Jong: A short question that we should, I suppose, put on the record. In all cases, the legislation and the sec­tion contemplate the orders expiring not later than December 31, 2021, correct?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. December 31 is the ultimate end date there. I’ve been advised by staff that I would be well recommended to make a small caveat. I advised the member that there were three measures still under the EPA that have not been ported over to CRMA. One was the ticket provision, one was the travel restriction and one was the mask restriction.

I’m advised that while it is very likely that they will ex­pire at the end of the state of emergency, there is still some public health analysis that may require them, if conditions require them to be ported over to CRMA. So I wouldn’t want the member to leave here believing that that was 100 percent clear, given the fluctuations in the pandemic and so on. So hopefully that caveat on the record assists people in understanding where we’re at. But December 31, 2021 is the relevant date.

M. de Jong: The three orders the Attorney has referred to — they, too, have that ultimate limitation of December 31. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Correct.

M. de Jong: The last area, just on the schedules…. It was prompted by something the Attorney said with respect to Order M114 and M162, the two examples that he mentioned. They strike me as examples where people have, over the life of those orders, perhaps not just grown accustomed but, in some cases, have embraced the added flexibility that those orders afford them.

What I think the minister has said during the course of the debate here is that whilst there may be a brief continuation of those orders beyond the expiration of the state of emergency…. If there is, that would be an opportunity for, for example, a strata corporation to adjust their bylaws to allow for a continuation of the kinds of meetings that are now taking place.

But if they fail to do so during that window of opportunity, the rules will revert back to what took place pre–state of emergency, unless the government were to come along at some point in the future and make the rules as they existed under the ministerial order a permanent feature of the governing legislation. Is all of that a fair capsulation of what I think the minister, the Attorney, said earlier?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. There are a number of measures that were put in place around remote work or meetings, legacies of a positive nature out of a horrible pandemic period, that many people do want to keep. The Municipal Affairs bill that was just in front of the House is a good example of that and an example of the process that will be followed. Those measures will not become permanent through either CRMA or through the EPA. In order for permanent changes to take place, they’ll come as one would expect, through legislative amendment or regulatory amendment through the regular course.

Those two orders that I mentioned are really good ex­amples of areas where there may be the possibility of long-term reform that comes from our experience during the pandemic around remote execution of powers of attorney, representation agreements or with respect to electronic strata meetings. That work will happen through the regular course of government.

[3:05 p.m.]

Specifically on the electronic strata meetings, the stratas will be able to meet by electronic means up until the expiry date of the CRMA provision without amending their by­laws. Following that, they’ll have to make an amendment to their bylaws if they don’t already have a provision allowing remote meetings. They’ll have to make an amendment to their bylaws after that, in order to meet remotely through electronic means.

M. de Jong: Back in July when the original act was de­bated and passed, the Attorney — and I think this was re­flective of perhaps a broader concern — highlighted some of the orders that had existed and listed 94, 120, 183 — all relating to providing targeted protections from civil liability.

I guess I have two questions about that. One, to the Attorney’s knowledge and the knowledge of the staff that are assisting him today, are those protections that have been utilized in particular circumstances? Have there been actual situations where that protection has been brought to bear thus far? None of us can speculate as to whether or not something might happen in the future, so I’m not asking the minister to speculate about some future cause of action. Are there any examples thus far?

Then, secondly, are those examples of orders that the Attorney expects would expire with the state of emergency or would continue to some point beyond the end of the state of emergency and December 31 of 2021?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I think the member helps the debate by ad­vising, in his second reading speeches, areas of interest, which allows staff to do a little bit of work so I can provide more complete answers. I’m grateful to both the member and staff for that cooperative work to better inform the public about the effect of legislation.

Staff were unable to find any reported decisions from British Columbia. We’re not aware of any pleadings that cite the provision, in a defence or otherwise. There’s one reported decision that staff were able to find in Ontario, which was that a case management judge in a class action proceeding noted that the protection needed it. Ontario has a similar provision that noted that the provision in Ontario would need to be taken into account in that class action that was under way.

This is really consistent with how we intended these protections to function, that they would be taken into account and that they would not be showing up in actions, because someone would have a look and see there was not a cause of action available for transmission of COVID, except in particular circumstances.

The member is right. This is incorporated and becomes a statutory instrument under section 5 of CRMA, which means the expiry date would be December 31. The intent here with the extension of these particular provisions is obviously COVID will still be, we expect, in our communities and still potentially transmitting.

That does not mean that on January 1 you could launch a lawsuit against someone who gave you COVID a couple months ago. It is for causes of action that would have arisen December 31 or before — are immune, within the terms of the provision, from having someone make a claim against you for it.

If there was an alleged transmission of COVID in mid-December, for example, you could not sue for it on January 1. But if there was transmission after December 31, when the protection ends, if government hasn’t taken any other actions you could potentially sue for COVID transmission after that. I say “if government hasn’t taken any action” be­cause we are currently looking at whether we should be continuing this protection in place through a separate statutory provision for post-December 31, but no decisions have been made yet about that.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

T. Shypitka: Happy to speak on this part of the bill. It’s not a very big part, mind you, but it’s an interesting one all the same. I don’t have a lot of time, so I just want to maybe give a brief summary of what I understand on the direction government is going with this, and that is through schedule 1 and the amendment by striking out Burrard thermal. It’s to my understanding that a list of heritage assets were placed in protection from….

The Chair: Apologies, Member. Sorry, we’re not quite there yet. I think you’re on part 2, and we are on clause 2. We will get there shortly if there are no further questions, but we’ll go through the other clauses first and then get to the section the member refers to. I’ll make sure to alert you, Member, or ask the future Chairs to.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. de Jong: Just a question on clause 3, the amendment to the original act. It excludes section 6 from repeal on December 31, 2021. Can the Attorney just put on the re­cord why is that is so.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This was what the member and I were just canvassing in the previous section. If a cause of action arose during the period that the protection was in place, this section 6 allows that protection to continue indefinitely. What it does is say that for that period of time that the protection was in place, you can’t show up in court and make a claim in relation to that at a later date, even though December 31 has come and gone. It’s in relation to the civil liability protection section.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. de Jong: To begin, I just want to have a brief conversation with the Attorney and the committee about this provision. I thought that the appropriate place to start would be simply to ask him to describe for the committee the practical effect that this change will have in the context of the Family Law Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined now by Shannan Knutson — she’s legal counsel with the family policy and legislation division — because this section relates to, as the member noted, the Family Law Act.

The amendments needed to clarify that an intention to harm a family member is not an element of the definition of family violence. When a court is looking at whether or not…. There are a number of reasons why family violence might be a significant factor in a court’s consideration — for example, some kind of a protection order. I could provide specific examples if the member’s interested. It’s a required element for various types of applications.

But in order to find family violence, the court, under this amendment, does not need to consider what the intentions were of the individual alleged to be involved in violence. The reason for this comes from a Court of Appeal decision in 2020. The Court of Appeal read the existing section as requiring the court to determine that the individual involved actually intended to harm a family member before finding that emotional or psychological abuse constituted family violence for the purposes of the act.

This amendment, because it’s in the definition section, will apply to all forms of abuse that are captured within the definition of family violence. If it were only to apply to emotional or psychological abuse, there would be the potential for a court to incorrectly interpret that an intention to harm a family member must be present to find another form of family violence. Really, any form of violence would be captured here.

This was the intent of the definition of family violence, and it addresses concerns that the Court of Appeal’s de­cision would have a chilling effect on applications for protection orders, determinations of family violence in parenting matters, and then that could have a knock-on effect of increasing risk of violence against women, children or other vulnerable people. So responding to the court decision, part of the dialogue that happens between courts and legislatures, and providing clarity to the court about what the Legislature’s intention was here.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: As the Attorney has indicated, it’s a direct legislative response to judicial interpretation of the existing definition that was not in keeping with what was the intention, or the perceived intention, of the Legislature. That’s a question. I just want the Attorney to confirm that the 2020 Court of Appeal decision was the direct impetus for the change and, more practically, that the concern is that without the change, the implications of that Court of Appeal decision could be to frustrate those who are applying for protection orders in certain circumstances. Are those both fair statements?

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s summary is right. The im­petus for this is the Court of Appeal decision, and the goal is to address that potential chilling effect on applications of various kinds under the Family Law Act. Also, it’s just sort of the increasing recognition, both inside and outside government, about the long-lasting impacts of family violence on vulnerable people.

Government’s intention is to address violence. Be­cause it places an additional burden on those who are the alleged victims of the violence to demonstrate the intent of the person alleged to be committing the vio­lence, that would be a step backwards from where we really want to go. That is to really try to make it possible for, and to support, victims of violence in coming forward to have matters heard in front of the court if they are, in fact, the victims of violence.

The intent of the person perpetrating the violence is not relevant to the fact that that could cause very serious trauma, and that should be responded to through the act.

M. de Jong: I’m going to ask the Attorney a couple of what-if questions or scenario-based questions, because I think that’s the job we have. I hope he will accept that none of this is done to, in any way, condone violence — period — let alone in a family setting.

But it would appear the amendment here was necessitated by an interpretation of the existing legislation by the courts that needed to be addressed. It’s sort of our obligation to ensure that we don’t, in dealing with that, create a different opportunity for an interpretation by the courts that this House and this committee would find troubling. That, by way of preamble.

[3:25 p.m.]

If one goes to the existing definition of “family violence” — and it is obviously a defined term that we are amending with this section — it includes, in sub (d), a definition of psychological or emotional abuse of a family member and lists the ways that that psychological abuse can occur.

Relationships sometimes succeed and sometimes don’t. A party who leaves a family, without the knowledge or consent of another party, may, indeed, inflict psychological abuse on a family member. They may have no intention of doing so. They may have concluded, for some very valid reasons, that it is time or it is a requirement that they leave.

Is the insertion of the words contained within this amendment, contained in section 4…? Is there a risk, in the Attorney’s mind, that we are creating an opportunity for a finding of family violence in that kind of a scenario? Or the Attorney General might say: “Well, that opportunity exists now.”

I hope he understands my question. I have a couple of those scenarios that I’d like to put to him in exploring the impact that the insertion of these words may have, for all of the legitimate reasons that they are being proposed for insertion into the definition.

Hon. D. Eby: Under the existing definition of family violence, a section that’s not modified by the proposed amend­ment, subsection (d) lists out a number of examples of psychological or emotional abuse of a family member that would constitute family violence.

Those examples are “(i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property, (ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or pre­vention of, a family member’s financial or personal auto­nomy, (iii) stalking or following of the family member, and (iv) intentional damage to property, and (e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence.”

This is not an exhaustive list. The member will note subsection (d) says that this is including these examples. It’s open to the court to find other types of abuse would constitute family violence. We’re not aware, on the staff side, of any case law that suggests that leaving a relationship would constitute psychological or emotional abuse to the level of meeting the definition of family violence.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

It doesn’t mean that the court hasn’t determined that or couldn’t, in some circumstance, although that would be extremely speculative and hard to imagine that set of facts that would arise. But it is an open category.

[3:30 p.m.]

The member is right to note that I was likely to say, be­cause I’m about to say, that the proposed amendment has absolutely no impact on those categories of examples of types of violence. The proposed amendment only speaks to the intent of the individual and whether that needs to be determined or not.

M. de Jong: I presume the intention, again, as we discussed moments ago, was to eliminate any doubt that may have existed around the need to establish intent. That will now be more graphically included in the definition of the act.

I have two other scenarios that occurred to me. I imagine the Attorney’s response will not be dissimilar from what he has just shared with the committee. But I suppose the next stage, the next potential level, to the example I just give, would be the party to a relationship who engaged in an extramarital affair. It’s not a stretch to suggest that that may cause another party to be deemed psychologically damaging, abusive.

Is it clear now, in that scenario, that that behaviour, where there may not have been any direct intent in that re­gard — that that is now captured by the definition of family violence?

Hon. D. Eby: This is very similar to the member’s last example. The subsections of (d) that outline examples of types of psychological or emotional abuse of a family member…. None of them lend themselves to the interpretation that an extramarital affair would qualify, so the court would really need to find an additional subsection, essentially, somehow, in the act related to infidelity, which, again, seems very unlikely just on the plain language of the statute.

M. de Jong: The third scenario that I thought of, which moves beyond the definition of psychological or emotional abuse…. I don’t think this is a fanciful — well, I know it’s not fanciful — example. But it is the family member who suffers from advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s and who commits an act or acts that they would never have dreamed of committing when healthy, a violent act that they are incapable of forming any kind of intent around…?

[3:35 p.m.]

Is that behaviour now explicitly captured by the definition of family violence? Or is the Attorney’s response, “Well, it always has been,” and there is no alteration here?

Hon. D. Eby: The amendment proposes to remove in­tent from the definition of “family violence” in terms of when a court is asked through another section of the statute to consider family violence as a factor. The court could find that someone without the requisite ability to form the intent, whether as a result of some disability or illness, had, in fact, committed the physical acts described in one of the subsections and that it meets the definition of family violence.

Once the court has determined that that hurdle has been crossed, what the court does with that in terms of fashioning an appropriate remedy based on what the individual is showing up in court to ask for might be influenced by the court’s consideration of capacity.

So whether a protection order would be an appropriate response in a particular setting based on the finding of family violence, yes, but within a set of circumstances, it would be a question of the court’s discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy.

I hope that that nuance communicates well to the member that the court still has discretion in fashioning these remedies, but what we don’t want is a situation where a person making the application is stopped at the gate by a finding that, well, this can’t be family violence because the person didn’t have the requisite intent. That’s what we’re trying to address here.

M. de Jong: It is a sensitive area, to be sure, but this is the moment to at least try to canvass some of these issues and how a court and a litigant might deal with it, keeping in mind that under the act, of course, applications can be brought on behalf of family members as well.

I am merely wishing to explore with the Attorney whe­ther there is any concern that an incapacitated person — incapacitated not by a drug or alcohol, necessarily, but incapacitated by health conditions like dementia, which has become so prevalent in our society, the by-product of living longer — would be targeted in an application by someone, by allegations of family violence, which carries with it all of the stigma that it should but in the case of a person who no longer possesses the capacity to form an intent or to even govern themselves by the norms of society and the norms of the law that we expect.

[3:40 p.m.]

I don’t dispute the Attorney’s explanation that the courts still possess discretionary authority to render decisions, taking those facts into account. But the explicit nature of the definition that this amendment will create — it seems to me that we must acknowledge — will expose people in that diminished capacity to findings, to allegations and to findings that they have committed family violence in ways that, of course, they never would, were they healthy, were they not the victim of dementia or Alzheimer’s.

That’s my point. I’m not here to necessarily rewrite the legislation. I am, though, asking the Attorney whether he and his able team of drafters have turned their mind to that possibility and the impact that could have on an individual during fleeting moments of lucidity, when they might become alive to the fact that they are on the receiving end of allegations that they have committed family violence within the meaning of the Family Law Act.

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of things come to mind in my discussion with staff. The first is sort of accepting the mem­ber’s example on its face and just saying: “Here is a risk where you’re going to put a label on someone who committed family violence on somebody.” We should take into account the harm that that could occasion — it is an important consideration for us in this place — and weigh it against the person against whom these acts have been occasioned and their need for protection, their need to show up to court and demonstrate that this has happened to them and to seek the protection of the court under the Family Law Act.

[3:45 p.m.]

The prejudice to the individual and their reputation pre-illness or pre–lack of capacity or that only comes about because of their lack of capacity, on a weighting against the need to protect the victim of this violence…. I think we both accept that the acts would be meeting the definition of violence. Our policy decision is to say our goal is to protect the victim of violence, even at the risk that this person may not have intended to engage in family violence due to a lack of capacity, because the goal of the act is to protect the individual from the violence.

The second is, beyond that policy decision, the likeli­hood of different scenarios. The likelihood of an individual with reduced capacity — that the Family Law Act would be the mechanism by which a relative or family member would be seeking protection from a family member that, because of a debilitating illness or other disability, had acted out in a violent way…. The likelihood of them pursuing remedies through the Family Law Act and that individual being labeled essentially as someone who engaged in family violence despite the capacity issue is relatively low.

The odds of somebody thinking about going to court to seek a protection order, going to a lawyer and saying, “Listen, this person I’m in a relationship with is restricting my ability to access my own financial resources, is threatening me, is engaging in this kind of activity of following me around or tracking me on my phone,” or whatever, and the lawyer is saying: “Listen, there’s this court of appeal decision. We need to prove that this person you’re in a relationship with actually intends to harm you by this behaviour in order for it to be considered family violence now.” That, to me, seems like a far more likely scenario and one that acts as a barrier to someone being able to access remedies under the Family Law Act.

In terms of relative harms and risks of this amendment, in the absence of this amendment: a very significant risk that people who need to access the protections of the act will not be able to do so because of the difficulty in proving intent, and the risk that someone of reduced capacity would then be pulled into the Family Law Act — relatively low, although I’ll acknowledge that this scenario could happen. But even in that situation, our desire would be to protect the person who is the victim of violence, even if it meant an unfortunate connotation about that person that didn’t have the capacity to appreciate their own actions because of Alzheimer’s, in the member’s example.

In either one of those policy considerations, it brings us here to the Legislature to amend the act to remove the intent, because our intent is to protect the victim of violence and to give them the remedies available in the act, even if they can’t prove intention of the individual engaging in the violence.

M. de Jong: I’ll merely thank the Attorney General for his responses on section 4 and, by way of warning to those who are tracking and participating proceedings from elsewhere, indicate that following the passage of section 4, I will invite the Committee to pass sections 5 through 8.

Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On clause 9.

T. Shypitka: We’ll try this again. Awesome. Thank you to the minister for allowing me some time here today to talk to part 2….

The Chair: Sorry, Kootenay East. One moment please.

Attorney General.

Hon. D. Eby: My apologies to the member for Kootenay East. This is an ill-fated question he’s trying to ask.

I believe there will be a change of staff and possibly a minister here, so if we could just have a couple of minutes. This is the Minister for Energy and Mines, this section. Just let me confirm that.

The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:49 p.m. to 3:55 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

The Chair: I am thinking that maybe Kootenay East might want to say a few words. Go ahead, Kootenay East, please.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Chair. Three times the charm.

Thank you to the minister and staff for offering me the time on this small part of Bill 11, part 2, which speaks to the Clean Energy Act, particularly schedule 1 — amending by striking out, I guess, Burrard thermal. It’s a very small part of the bill, but it’s of a lot of interest to me and, I think, a lot of other people. I don’t have a lot of time, so I’m just going to do a little brief summary if I can, and the minister can agree. I’ll ask a question, just in the consideration of time here.

In schedule 1, there’s a list of heritage assets that were placed in protection from disposition when the Clean Energy Act came out in 2010. I believe the rationale was to keep these assets to ensure our province’s electricity self-sufficiency. It’s also my understanding that Burrard thermal continues to provide voltage support and stability for B.C. Hydro’s transmission and distribution of electricity in the Lower Mainland. This comes in the form of high-demand or peak times of electricity use.

I guess the first question to the minister is: do I have this right? Does Burrard thermal still provide this support? Would the role that Burrard thermal plays right now not be considered as high-demand or emergency support?

Hon. B. Ralston: Burrard thermal has been decommissioned and no longer is capable of generating electricity. It does provide what’s called voltage support, although that function is reaching what Hydro regards as its end of life. Hydro is currently considering a number of other options to ensure that its transmission system will operate safely and reliably.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for that. Yes, I was aware that in 2016, it was decommissioned for electricity generation. As the minister indicated, it does still provide that voltage support.

The question was: does the minister consider this volt­age support right now? I realize it’s coming to end of life, but it still does provide that service. Does the minister consider that to be a high-demand type of service as well as emergency support?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m advised that the voltage support is designed to stabilize the system during peak demand and low demand, but it doesn’t really provide any emergency support. I think that the member may be referring to the previous capacity that has now been decommissioned of generating electricity. It no longer does that. It’s more a stabilization role for the system at large.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister. So it provides stability to the grid. Without that support, what situation would we be in without that stability support? I mean, it’s there for a reason. It’s doing a job of some sort. What I’m getting at is if that was removed immediately, where would we find the capacity? Where would we find that additional support to back the system up during high demands or low demands, as you said?

Hon. B. Ralston: B.C. Hydro is evaluating the function this site serves. No decision has been made. It wouldn’t be ended immediately. If it were to stay on this site, it would require investment, or it could be moved to another one of the substations in the Lower Mainland to perform the same function. So there need be no concern that it would end abruptly. The function would continue either on this site with further investment or at another substation in the Lower Mainland to perform the same function.

[4:05 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Minister.

Does the minister know what type of capacity is necessary to replace the functionality of what Burrard thermal does right now?

Hon. B. Ralston: What the voltage support enhancement or renewal would involve would be placing equipment either in the present location or in another location. But there is no…. If the question is how much it is going to cost, they haven’t reached the point in the process where they’re able to provide a costing.

T. Shypitka: The question wasn’t about cost. It was about what type of capacity is needed to replace what Burrard thermal supplies right now. The minister mentioned it could be easily…. It wouldn’t be immediate, but then, eventually, it could be relocated from a substation in the Lower Mainland somewhere.

I guess the question would be: what is the capacity that’s necessary from the substation to supply the voltage support that is necessary for what Burrard thermal is doing right now? The second question to that would be: where would the generating power come from? It’s coming from a substation, but where would the generating power come from?

Hon. B. Ralston: Now, I’m told that there isn’t any generation capacity involved in this. The voltage support is really to support the transmission system, and that’s what the equipment does. So it can either perform that function at this site in the future, or the decision might be to move it to another substation in the Lower Mainland.

T. Shypitka: Speaking of that, there have been rumours that this site will be…. Obviously, it’s going to be disposed of. That’s why it’s taking it out of the heritage assets.

I guess the question is…. It’s a public asset owned by the taxpayers, and constituents and people in British Columbia would like to see some transparency around disposition of this asset.

Can the minister confirm the transparency of the sale, the price, if there’s any government financing to whoever purchases it, tax breaks to whom it’s sold, conditions, intended use — those types of things?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The process is just beginning. I think it’s not correct to assume that it would be a sale. This legislation is required because Hydro can neither lease nor sell this property so long as it’s on that list. So we’re at the very beginning of the process, and this is a very public step, obviously, by changing the legislation.

The next step will be to consult with Indigenous Na­tions. Some have been consulted with already. They’ve indicated no concerns with those amendments. But once, and if, this legislation passes, Hydro will be notifying and engaging with Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and other nations to explore their interests in the Burrard site. So we’re at the very beginning of what I would expect would be a long and fully engaged public process.

T. Shypitka: Thanks for that, Minister. But obviously, there’s some intent. There’s intent when we go through this amendment to strike Burrard thermal from the protected list of heritage assets. There’s an intent, obviously, to dispose of the asset. There would be no rationale otherwise to go through this process.

So let’s talk about these early beginnings, as the minister said. I heard the Attorney General in second reading saying that there was some consultation with First Nations. I heard the minister just now saying they’re starting to, yet we’re disposing of this asset that is protected under the Clean Energy Act.

Maybe the minister can enlighten me on what negotiations have happened with which nations. And are we not putting the cart in front of the horse here? Why would we not fully disclose to First Nations in British Columbia on the sale or the disposition of a public asset?

Hon. B. Ralston: The member is wrong to characterize what has taken place so far as negotiations. No negotia­tions have taken place. What has taken place is consultation, which is required legally, and that’s a commitment of the government.

But there is interest in this site. There’s no doubt about it. It has industrial zoning. It has connection to energy infrastructure, proximity to tidewater. There are a number of inquiries, particularly for clean technology developments. So there is interest in the site, but there are no negotiations that have been initiated. It is, again, at a very preliminary stage.

The Chair: Minister, in the interest of order, if you could wait until you’re recognized, it would be appreciated. May­be wave or do something so I know you wish to speak, and then I’ll be very happy to recognize you.

Hon. B. Ralston: I apologize. This is a very awkward process, as you well know.

The Chair: Yes, I agree. Wave to me, and it will make it simpler.

Kootenay East, please.

T. Shypitka: Thank you, Chair. To the minister, I’m assuming — I’m not stating a fact — that there are negotiations going on, on a sale right now. But I’m assuming that when the government goes through a process to strike a public asset from a protected list on the heritage assets list, that….

[4:15 p.m.]

As the minister said, it’s a very attractive site. It would do a lot of great things for a lot of people, and I look forward to what can come from this.

My question was on consultation with First Nations. Before you take this out — that’s what this bill represents — wouldn’t it be prudent for the ministry to consult First Nations on the intent of what it means to take a public asset out of the public trust?

Hon. B. Ralston: As I said earlier, ministry staff have met and consulted with the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. They have indicated no concerns with the proposed amendments. The ministry sent letters of notification to the Kwikwetlem First Nation and several Stó:lō Nation members, including Seabird Island, Shxw’ow’hamel, Skawahlook, Soowahlie, Stó:lō Nation and the Stó:lō Tribal Council to ensure that they are aware of the proposed amendments and inviting comments or feedback.

Once, and if, this legislation passes, then those nations will be engaged to explore their interests in the site. During that engagement, B.C. Hydro will share its preliminary thinking on the process for exploring potential future uses of the site, given its unique characteristics. This would involve consideration of principles, format and timing. That would be initiating a separate process that would — as the member might expect — be likely to take some time.

It’s not clear, at this point, what the level of interest, if any, is, but that’s why that outreach would take place. But as I’ve said now, twice, the preliminary steps have been taken, and there’s no opposition to the proposed amendment.

T. Shypitka: I’m just trying to rephrase my thinking here, but I’ll go to an easier question. If a sale is done or leased, what will the proceeds of the sale be used for? Where will that money go? Is it going to stay with B.C. Hydro? Does it go back to general revenue? What is the intent when the funds are exchanged?

Hon. B. Ralston: The proceeds of a sale, if there were to be one — or if there were to be a lease, the lease payments — would go to B.C. Hydro.

T. Shypitka: Okay. Thank you, Minister, for that.

Taking this heritage asset out of the protected list — I think there are about 35 or 36 of them of them in the province — what does that mean for electricity self-sufficiency in our province? Does it jeopardize emergency provisions, if needed, for failing electrical systems in the future?

[4:20 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing as the minister is not yet in the waiting room, we will recess until 25 after four.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member’s question was: what is the impact of this proposed legislative amendment on the energy self-sufficiency of the province? The answer is none. Burrard thermal is not a generating facility.

T. Shypitka: Yes, I understand it’s not generating anything right now. I just look at the list of assets that B.C. Hydro right now has, and the fact that these assets were protected under Clean Energy B.C. for the purpose of electricity self-sufficiency, and I wonder where it ends. I wonder if amendments like this will become the norm if B.C. Hydro needs the cash or if government needs the cash, essentially setting up a virtual ATM system. Self-sufficiency, which was mandated as a fairly important thing…. Maybe the minister doesn’t agree.

I guess the question to the minister is: does the minister believe that energy or electricity self-sufficiency should be a priority for British Columbia?

Hon. B. Ralston: This is a very precise proposed am­endment. It’s removing one asset from the list. There are no plans at all, despite the member’s attempt to conjure up some kind of impending tsunami. Even if that were the case, each one of the assets that was proposed to be removed would have to come forward in this same process, to the Legislature, for a full debate on an amendment. There is no plan other than to deal with this one, assuming that it passes.

T. Shypitka: The question was: does the minister have a priority in mind on keeping electricity self-sufficiency in­tact in British Columbia? That is the reason why these heritage assets were on a protected list to begin with. We’re seeing one leave now. Nothing really to see here, I guess, other than the fact that it could go towards a really great project.

I encourage it, and I’d like to see what comes of it. How­ever, it’s a stroke of a pen, and it’s bringing an amendment forward with a majority government, that others could fall. My question to the minister, which he didn’t answer, was: does he see the need or the priority for B.C. to have electricity self-sufficiency?

Hon. B. Ralston: I believe I’ve made it clear that the removal of this asset from the list will not have an impact on the self-sufficiency of the British Columbia grid whatsoever.

[4:30 p.m.]

It is not a generating facility. It is no longer capable of generating electricity. It’s confined to a single amendment from the list, a single striking of one facility from the list. As the member rightly knows, this site has huge potential, and there’s a lot of interest in it, both from Indigenous Nations and from many others in the clean technology sector particularly.

I know that the city of Port Moody is interested, because when Burrard thermal was decommissioned, they lost the tax revenue. It was, I think, 2 or 3 percent of their total tax revenue as a city when it was decommissioned. So they are interested to see a new development on this site, and it’s a site with huge potential for advancing the economy of British Columbia and the prosperity of British Columbia. So that’s what we’re endeavouring to do here, and it really has no impact on the question that the member raises.

T. Shypitka: Well, the question was whether the minister embraced the policy in the Clean Energy Act on keeping or maintaining British Columbia’s electricity self-sufficient. That was the question.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I understand that the Burrard thermal generating plant was decommissioned in 2016. It’s not having a purposeful life right now, so I can see it moving on to better pastures. I’ll ask about those in a second.

The question to the minister was: does he embrace the Clean Energy Act and keeping British Columbia energy, or electricity, self-sufficient?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, with respect to the member….

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you.

With respect to the member, that’s not a question this amendment engages. I mean, what we’re talking about are the possible alternate uses of this site. B.C. Hydro has received inquiries from many companies about the use of the site, including data centres, power generation, LNG terminals, hydrogen developments, carbon se­questration projects. It’s got waterfront access, industrial zoning, potential access of up to 300 megawatts of clean, reliable and affordable energy from the system. So it has huge economic potential. That’s what motivates me in bringing this amendment forward, and that’s what I’m looking forward to.

T. Shypitka: Well, seeing, I guess, as the minister won’t answer whether he believes B.C. should be electricity self-sufficient…. The reason why I ask it is because it is in a list of protected assets that were set up to keep B.C. energy self-sufficient. If we sold all these assets off, then we will lose that self-sufficiency. That’s why I asked the question, and the minister won’t answer it.

I think it’s appropriate for what this amendment means, but let’s talk about some of those projects he was talking about. I’m excited as much as the minister is. We could have some great First Nation projects. We could have…. The minister mentioned hydrogen projects, some other energy projects.

Does the minister see this disposition of this asset going to another energy-producing project?

Hon. B. Ralston: I think it’s early days.

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. B. Ralston: Pardon me. Sorry.

The Chair: Please proceed, Minister.

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you. I apologize, Chair.

The potential is there. No decisions have been made. I think the potential for clean energy at this site, for all the reasons that I’ve already given, is excellent. I know the MLA from Port Moody has expressed his support for that. I know that the city of Port Moody is interested in developing industrial land within the municipality in a way that would contribute to the electrification and the decarbonization of British Columbia’s economy.

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s an ideal site for many potential uses, and indeed, there may be multiple uses, given the size of the site. So that’s the vision. We’re at the very, very beginning of the process. This is about a first, very small step in that direction.

T. Shypitka: I agree with the minister. I think it sets up all kinds of potentials, lots of energy-producing potentials, for sure. Since it won’t be in B.C. Hydro’s hands anymore or government’s hands anymore, I would assume that these power producers would be independent. Would that be correct?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, there is a lot of potential. There have been a lot of inquiries, but nothing has been determined. I can’t really say, with any degree of precision, whether they would be independent. I’m not quite sure what the member means by that. But what entities might come forward and be successful in a process that will be a long public process is not at all clear or predetermined at this point.

T. Shypitka: To the minister’s point, I’ve seen the member from Port Moody’s comments on what this site could represent. The minister has mentioned a litany of different examples of what this project or this site could represent, all energy-producing. I think there were some other ones that were not. I think there was something to do with salmon. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

But most of them, 95 percent of the ones I’ve heard, are energy-producing projects, which makes sense, because a lot of the infrastructure is there already. My question — that the minister wasn’t understanding, maybe, and maybe I didn’t phrase it right — is that because B.C. Hydro won’t be involved because we’re releasing it from their assets, disposing it from their assets, it would more than likely be an independent producer of power.

I wonder on that, because we have said, time and time again, that B.C. Hydro has eliminated the standing offer program for independent power producers. Would that not be a contradiction, bringing in a large-scale independent power producer for this site?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, at the present, B.C. Hydro is working on the IRP, the long-term plan for energy acquisition and development in the province. It’s a 20-year plan that’s being worked on at this point. For a long time in the future, B.C. Hydro will have a surplus of energy, and that’s the process that we’re engaged in.

[4:40 p.m.]

What this is dealing with is a site with access to megawatts for a variety of purposes. It has a number of really excellent attributes that have a number of companies and entities interested in the potential that might be developed on this site, along with support from the city of Port Moody and, generally, the clean tech sector, of which British Columbia is a leader. British Columbia regularly has a number of companies in the global top 100 clean technology companies.

As the member has already agreed, there is huge potential for this site. That’s what we’re focused on. For me to commit or say that a certain type of company, other than a very broad category, is destined to be on this site is premature, at the very least.

T. Shypitka: Yes, Minister. Once again, I agree that there is a huge potential. Where I get stuck is that we have been holding independent power producers back for the last three years or so on trying to tie into the grid because of the surplus energy. Here we go with a project that if disposed of, if this asset is sold off, could represent a huge power producer.

I think Burrard thermal generated, I believe, about 950 megawatts, which is pretty close to what Site C represents at 1,100. Burrard thermal has the infrastructure to be a very large power producer to someone. Where I get stuck, like I said, is that we’ve been denying folks for a while on independent power-producing contracts, and here we go with something like this.

I guess just a final question then. Will there be transparency on the sale — who bought it, how much it was, what’s the intended use? I think I had a couple of other lists here, but I can write them down for you.

Can we expect transparency from government on the proceeds of the sale in its entirety?

Hon. B. Ralston: It is not necessarily a sale, as I have attempted to repeatedly say. It could well be a long-term lease or a sale, but neither alternative has been decided upon.

It will be a transparent process. I can guarantee that the interest of the surrounding communities, particularly Port Moody, will be intense and there will be public interest in a project of this scale in this location. It’s certainly the intention of B.C. Hydro to be transparent in the steps that are taken, should this piece of legislation pass.

[4:45 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Does Burrard thermal provide port security — to secure power for port security?

Hon. B. Ralston: Sorry, I needed to check with staff on a question. No. It doesn’t provide power for port security.

T. Shypitka: Last question. The minister kind of alluded to it earlier, but right now Port Moody receives grants in lieu of taxes, I believe, as well as the loss of school taxes on the property, which are remitted back to the province. This is about…. I believe it’s $300,000 a year, somewhere around there. I think the grants in lieu of taxes are around $290,000. What will happen with that if this is sold off?

Hon. B. Ralston: When the generating facility was in existence, Port Moody received $1.3 million of grants in lieu of taxes, and they lost that when the facility was shut down. Buildings and other properties, or other assets on the properties, generate, as the member has said, some taxes. We don’t see any change in that in the short term at all.

Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

M. Morris: Just a couple of questions on the process and some of the work that is being done around this. Does government know how many persons who have been issued COVID fines and fines under the emergency measures act currently have a driver’s licence in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, we don’t have the exact number in terms of how many people that have been issued tickets have drivers’ lic­ences or do not have drivers’ licences. But I think it would be fair to say that it would probably be representative, very much, of the overall population in British Columbia, and that the vast majority of people in this province do have a driver’s licence.

M. Morris: So what is the method of collecting fines from non-B.C. drivers, or people in British Columbia who don’t have drivers’ licences?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the collection agency process, which is the process that we already have in place.

M. Morris: That leads to my last question here. Has the government done a cost-benefit analysis of whether it should be left in the hands of the bailiffs or the debt collection agencies or given to ICBC here? Is there a cost that is…? Does ICBC charge a percentage of their cost for collecting these fines?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As the member knows, there al­ready is infrastructure in place. But the additional cost for this is about $58,000. The total number of fines significantly exceeds that.

Clause 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate, Bill 7.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

I. Paton: I got started yesterday afternoon speaking to Bill 7, and I’ll just backtrack a little bit to talk about once again my role as Agriculture critic, and how I’ve had the opportunity to travel throughout B.C. to just really understand the vastness and the differences between not only geography but the people and what people do in this province for a living and why it’s so fundamentally important that a pillar of our democracy is representation and why everyone in this province needs to be equally represented no matter where you happen to live.

Why are we all here, in the first place? It’s because the constituents in our ridings need a voice. They elected each and every one of us on the understanding that their needs would be heard and brought forward to government. Now this legislation before us has some implications for that representation. We know that after every second election, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is appointed to look at the current boundaries of our ridings and possibly make some changes to keep up with B.C.’s demographics as they shift.

This bill in particular aims to remove protections to the regions of Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the north, which have a lower population than most urban areas like communities on the Lower Mainland, yet are vast geographic regions with unique challenges.

Some of the important points of Bill 7 that we are speaking in opposition to…. While the appointing of this commission is routine, the changes proposed in the legislation before us are not, as it seeks to remove protections that have been put in place to ensure that rural British Columbia is represented in our Legislature. Specifically, this bill seeks to remove statutory protections to three regions: the Cariboo-Thompson, the Columbia-Kootenay and the north.

These regions have been protected because while they have a lower population than the densely populated Lo­wer Mainland, they are vast geographic regions full of diverse people who deserve to be fairly represented in Victoria. This is why the Electoral Boundaries Commission itself has said that effective representation is not simply anchored to the equality of population. A 2015 report says the “factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation should be taken into account” when deciding how to draw electoral boundaries.

Additionally, we must consider that a large percentage of First Nations communities in B.C. are located in the regions that are set to have statutory protections removed. Around 30 percent of First Nations in British Columbia live in the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions, some in incredibly remote locations, and we need to ensure that they also have equal access to the representation they are entitled to under the law.

Why does a member for Delta South even care? Why does a guy who could drive from one end of his riding to another in no time care about a bill that could drastically alter rural ridings and not his own? Well, I’ve been taught in my short period of time in provincial politics that all of British Columbia matters.

[5:00 p.m.]

Opportunities for all of British Columbia. I’ve spoken about this in the past. I’ve spoken about how we often seem to think we live in this perfect bubble in the Fraser Valley or in the capital city region of Vancouver Island. We have all of the benefits of theatres and professional sports and the best of restaurants and all of these great things.

We may think of our holidays as a trip to Hawaii or Mexico or Palm Springs or going on a cruise, but there are people all over this province that love where they live because life is different for them. They don’t have access to some of the things we have here, but their enjoyment is different.

Their enjoyment may be the outdoors. It may be the best fishing spot they have. It may be hunting. It may be snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, all the things you do in remote parts of rural B.C. that are so important to people. They are every bit as important to this province as we are living down in the populated area, which represents about 3 percent of the geography of this province down here in the Fraser Valley.

It’s so important to me. People in all parts of this pro­vince have different ways of life. They even wear different clothes, like yesterday. We have cowboys that wear the western hats and the jeans and the boots. This is what they wear every day. This is their lifestyle. People in the forestry industry in all parts of B.C. that have a different job….

We have to respect everyone in all corners of this pro­vince that may not be doctors or lawyers or accountants or do the things that a lot of people do down here on the coast. These are people in the forestry industry, every day, that get up and drive trucks, that operate excavators, that do welding, that build pipelines for oil and gas, that help to build LNG plants, that work at Rio Tinto in Kitimat, that are in the fishing industry, that are in the mining industry.

There are just so many important things to the resource development of this province and people living in all cor­ners of this province. Whether you’re in forestry or mining, you’re a welder, you drive a truck, you drive an excavator or you’re a farmer in Creston or Fort St. John or Daw­son Creek, everybody is important in this province.

We should not only care about what any piece of legislation means for our own constituents but for others around the province as well, as I have just noted. I know how important my constituents and their issues are to me. It’s no different for my rural colleagues who already have to work a lot harder, in some cases, to reach some of the people they represent.

I think of my colleague in Fraser-Nicola, whose riding is incredibly large and incredibly diverse. It’s comprised of several communities, including Clinton, Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Lytton, Logan Lake, Merritt and Hope, and even smaller ones like Gold Bridge and Big Bar Creek. With that many communities, you can imagine the work that goes into maintaining relationships with local governments, First Nations, school districts and, most importantly, the constituents that the member represents, who come to her with a wide variety of concerns. Her ability to connect with her diverse constituents, who have diverse needs, is necessary to an effective democracy.

A bill like this essentially says the only thing that matters is that each electoral district has the same number of people living in it. That’s where the concern lies.

Our current boundaries in more rural parts of the pro­vince recognize the unique attributes of these areas. They reflect the reality that while their population may be lower than what we see in more densely populated areas, it’s pretty much impossible for all those constituents to be represented properly if these ridings were to be made bigger. It makes me reflect on the way I serve my constituents in an urban riding, and more broadly, it’s why it’s so important for people to have reasonable access to their provincial representative.

In my recent travels to Fort St. John to talk to farmers up there about the canola industry, wheat and grass seed, raising buffalo and beef cattle, something that I noticed…. I have been to Fort St. John before but in the middle of winter. Nobody drives a car in Fort St. John. Everybody has a big pickup truck. You have to have that to get around on the roads in the climate and the weather conditions up in the north part of B.C. People are used to driving long distances now to get to where they have to get to, to do business.

[5:05 p.m.]

It’s long enough now as it is for someone to get from Fort Nelson down to Fort St. John to meet with their MLA. We certainly do not need to add more distance by combining ridings in the north. The last thing we want to do is to add to the fact that already people are driving 2½ or three hours to meet with their MLA in Dawson Creek or Fort St. John. The last thing we need to do is to add a trip where people might have to drive as much as six or eight hours to get from where they live to get to an in-person meeting with their MLA in the north or in parts of the Kootenays.

I want to share at this time an experience I had with one of my own constituents earlier this year. A 65-year-old gentleman in my community of Ladner was facing eviction from a B.C. Housing unit just down the street from my constituency office. The reason given for his eviction was said to be a pattern of uncleanliness within the unit.

For some background, this gentleman suffered a mas­sive stroke about 15 years ago and continues to experience cognitive disabilities. To mitigate his high blood pressure, he would walk around Ladner daily and would frequent several local coffee shops to read the Province newspaper from front to back. His calm demeanour and friendliness earned him several friends within the community, several of whom came to my office expressing concern over his eviction.

In January, his belongings were removed from his unit and were stored in a locker in New Westminster, and he suddenly had nowhere to go. At 65 years old, he found himself homeless for the first time in his life. Each day he would come to my office looking for help. My staff and I worked immediately to find him housing.

In the interim, he would take refuge from the snow, the strong winds and cold temperatures this winter at the Ladner United Church, which is just right across the street from my office, in their extreme weather shelter. The shelter would open at nine each evening and have people vacated by seven o’clock the next morning. With the COVID-19 public health orders, they were restricting indoor seating. He often found himself walking in the cold weather, trying to find a place where he could warm up, even for a few minutes.

I took it upon myself to befriend this gentleman. I could see that every night he was sleeping on a one-inch little foam mattress on the floor of the United Church, and they were only letting about five or six people in each night. He couldn’t even get in till nine o’clock at night. So he had to kill time somewhere, walking about Ladner until nine o’clock at night.

I took it upon myself, as a local MLA, to get him into a local motel for a few nights. I helped to pay some of the fee myself. I went to Costco and bought him just some cheap jeans and some socks and underwear and a few things to get him cleaned up and get him into some clothes, as his hadn’t been washed for a great deal of time.

It was very rewarding for me to carry this through with the fantastic people I have working for me in my office, as my staff and I worked tirelessly to find him permanent housing through affordable housing societies. After several weeks we were able to find him temporary shelter at an even better shelter across the river, in the Ironwood part of Steveston, at the Salvation Army’s Richmond shelter, just across the river in Richmond.

After a month of walking outdoors in poor weather and sleeping on a mat in the extreme weather shelter, the prospect of having a place to go every night, where he could sleep on a bed that was off the ground, use a washing ma­chine and dryer to clean his clothes and sit in a dining hall where he could enjoy hot meals three times per day, meant the world to him when we got him into the better shelter by the Salvation Army, across the river in Richmond. It was shortly into his stay at the shelter in Richmond that my office was able to secure permanent housing for this gentleman in North Delta, and he moved into a new B.C. Housing unit in early April.

I want to thank so much my CAs, Michelle and Taylor, for the work they did with a couple of local social workers. It was such a success that we got him into his own apartment, with some help to monitor his daily living habits, up in North Delta.

It is cases like these that make me proud to be an MLA in Delta South, knowing that my office can make a difference in people’s lives. Without my office being located down the street from his home, who knows where he would have sought help from? Perhaps he would still be homeless to this day if it wasn’t for the fact that I was there and handy and he was able to come and knock on my door and get help from his local MLA.

[5:10 p.m.]

Imagine the same situation in a region like the Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay or the north if boundaries were changed, some ridings were removed and others were made substantially bigger as a result. Imagine the tremendous distance between a vulnerable constituent like this fellow and the MLA he desperately needed help from.

It may just be too large an obstacle for him to overcome. He doesn’t have many belongings. He may not have regular access to a phone. He has scarce funds. He couldn’t just hop on a bus to get to a constituency office hours and hours away if he was in a huge new riding in the north or in the Columbia-Kootenay or in the Cariboo-Thompson.

As I mentioned, the gentleman we helped had some med­ical considerations. He needs a helper to meet with him where he is. I can’t imagine how he would get that help under the proposal before us. So I think it’s important that we take these factors into consideration when we talk about potential changes to electoral boundaries.

We cannot forget about the rest of B.C. We’re often just so focused about what we do down here in Metro Vancouver or on Vancouver Island, where, as I said earlier, we just have so many opportunities, so many great things. But we just cannot discount the people that live in places such as Fort Nelson and Atlin and Dawson Creek and Trail and the Kootenays. I mean, the list goes on and on and on.

Those people are real people that are doing real jobs. We want to promote people to get out of the housing craziness that we have here in Metro Vancouver, and let’s start getting people into some areas of B.C. where they have a chance to get a decent job in resource development or in agriculture or in forestry and get people moving, as young people, to some of these smaller rural towns to seek out a new and exciting and better life.

We need to step outside of our own circumstances and think about those who don’t have the same resources and abilities that others do. We need to ensure that everyone in B.C. has reasonable access to their provincial representative and not make it any harder for them to get assistance that they need. I certainly hope that the independent commission of three will consider the needs of all British Columbians, not just those of the 3 percent geographical area that most of us live in down here in Metro Vancouver and the capital city.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Peace River South. [Applause.]

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair.

Well, thank you to the government members for ap­plaud­ing me.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome back.

M. Bernier: Yeah, they might take back that applause after they hear some of my comments I have to make. But I do appreciate the opportunity to stand up and speak to Bill 7.

This bill, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amend­ment Act, is something that comes in front of this House every two elections. I want to maybe start by acknowledging and thanking so many of my B.C. Liberal colleagues who have taken the opportunity in their role as an elected member of this House to stand up and to speak to this bill and to talk about the vastness of our province of British Columbia, the diversity that we have in our province, the differences that we have all around — whether it be through our economy, through the people and diversity, the geography that we have — and how we are so blessed in the province of British Columbia because of all of that.

British Columbia, because of that, though, obviously has, I would say, challenges but opportunities as well. We are different than almost every other province in Confederation, almost every other province in Canada — the way that we are spread out, the way that we have the opportunities in our resource sector, the way we have the majority of the people who are situated in the Lower Mainland.

I want to thank my colleagues who have stood up, especially, I’d say…. I want to acknowledge my urban colleagues who have spoken so well, so eloquently, and who have spoken from the heart, who understand the differences that we have here across British Columbia. Again, this comes in front of us every two elections, the electoral commission amendment act, for a review.

[5:15 p.m.]

This time, though, one of the things that obviously, I think, perplexes myself and many members on this side of the House is the fact that government has chosen to take out a major part of what’s in the act, which is around — and I’ll use these words not carefully — protecting three parts of the province.

Now, let’s not kid ourselves here. That protection was brought in for very well-thought-out reasons, because of some of the things I mentioned earlier — the differences that we have in the province because of the geographical vastness that we have; and again, as some of the people have said, because of the differences even for the people in our province of what they expect to see in our province: what they hope to accomplish, what they hope to have out of their elected officials.

I will say how surprised — I’ll even use the word “disappointed” — that I am that the members of the NDP have foregone their right to speak in this House to what I would say is one of the most important bills that’s come forward in this session, which is about our democracy, about our representation. This is about the people of British Columbia, the people they elect and how they are represented here in Victoria.

I’m surprised, actually, that no members of the NDP are willing to stand up and justify why they want to remove this portion out of the act which would allow for the people in rural parts of British Columbia to have what I would say is an equitable voice.

Part of the act is talking about effective representation. Well, I ask you: what does effective representation mean? It’s a very loose term, I would argue. The reason why I say that is I’m sure members of the NDP will stand up and say, in their opinion, effective representation completely comes down to people only, and having the same amount of people represented by an MLA. Maybe that’s why they’re not speaking to this, because that’s what they all believe.

I know there are rural MLAs in the NDP who have travelled the province. I truly believe that they understand the challenges in many areas of the province that I will speak to and I know members, colleagues of mine, will speak to. I know that there are now members of cabinet who have been very fortunate enough, in the NDP, to travel around the province in their role and to hear from people. But I also know that they’ve seen the challenges that there can be to get to remote parts of British Columbia.

The fact that you might have to fly to an airport and then drive for five or six hours after you’ve landed in an airport just to get to a meeting — I know members of the NDP understand that, some of them at least. I would hope all would. So it does surprise me that not only are they willfully removing this section out of the act; it’s, I would say, quite upsetting that they’re not willing to stand up in the House and defend those exact actions that they claim to support.

Let me just put things in perspective a little bit for, may­be, members of the NDP who have not had the privilege of travelling around the province yet, who have maybe not had that excitement of flying to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John and then having to drive five or six hours to go visit First Nations communities up by Fort Nelson, up in the Liard or almost to the Yukon border. I hope they get that privilege, because then they’ll understand where we’re coming from, for those of us like myself and my colleague in Peace River North, with some of the differences.

[5:20 p.m.]

Now, this is not about and it shouldn’t be about an us and them, a rural or urban. That’s not what this is about. At no time am I trying to, through my comments, take away from the work or the challenges that an urban MLA faces. I just want to highlight that they’re different. When I say “different,” I think back to a former colleague of mine, a former mayor of Vancouver that most of us in this House know — Sam Sullivan.

Sam flew up to Dawson Creek because he had never been up there, as a member of this House at the time, representing Vancouver–False Creek. He flew up to Dawson Creek because he said he really wanted to understand the differences that we sometimes talk about in this House. He definitely got an eye-opener when, as a person travelling and using a wheelchair, with some of the challenges when you have dirt roads, cobblestone sidewalks and airplanes and hotels that may not be accommodating to someone in his situation.

One of the other things that he reminded me of in our discussions…. He goes: “You know, sometimes we take for granted when we’re in downtown Vancouver…. Yes, we have challenges.” And yes, they’re unique challenges that maybe I don’t have to face, but he reminded me that even in his situation of being a member from downtown Vancouver….

As I know the Speaker and others will recognize, his riding was about eight square blocks, representing more people, granted, than I represent — eight square blocks. He also reminded me that, give or take a few issues, the majority of those people in that eight square blocks have similar issues, similar challenges. They have similar discussions — not to stereotype it, by any means. Of course, there are some differences, but he was trying to, I think, highlight for me that he understood when he came and toured around my riding.

He said: “Wow. You know, I don’t have to deal with four different mayors who have four different possibly competing issues, who have to travel for hours just to have a face-to-face meeting with their MLA. I don’t have to deal with three sawmills that are competing against each other and the challenges of the back country. I don’t have the stresses and challenges of a massive oil and gas field and the competition that comes with that, and the challenges that that faces, or one of the largest agricultural zones in the province on top of all of that, and the ranchers.”

I could go on and on, but the point was that it was an eye-opener for an urban MLA to understand the differences and the challenges that rural B.C. faces. Picture this. I believe — I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong — that there are around nine MLAs on Vancouver Island. My riding alone is larger than Vancouver Island. Imagine being in Port Hardy, and the only way you’d get to have a face-to-face with your MLA would be possibly driving from Port Hardy down to Victoria, if that’s where the office were.

Let’s look at it a different way. In the Lower Mainland, there are 48 MLAs — because of the population; I’m not taking away from that — that represent the Lower Mainland. My riding is larger than the entire Lower Mainland. You have one MLA, which is myself, representing a geographical area that 48 MLAs represent in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland area. That comes back to the point of effective and, I would say, fair representation. I believe it’s something where most people in the Lower Mainland, if they actually thought they would have one MLA to represent them, because of geography, they would be up in arms.

[5:25 p.m.]

This is why we have a situation where we represent by population. I understand that. But that is also why there was a situation where protection was brought in for these unique situations in these three zones of the province because of those geographical challenges and issues, to make sure that we recognized what effective or fair — and, in many cases, essential — representation means. I don’t want to get into an us-and-them. I don’t want to create that rural-urban divide. I just want the acknowledgment that there is a rural and urban difference, that there are different rural and urban needs and expectations.

I know my colleague from Peace River North…. I think one of the most common things we hear, with two MLAs that represent such a large portion, geographically, of the province…. One of the number one things we hear is: “How do you guys even get heard in Victoria, as it is? We’re the furthest away. There’s only two of you. How do you get your voice heard?”

I know my colleagues can probably talk about some of those comments that we’ve heard from people already, when we said, “You do realize that the NDP are now taking away this part of the act that will take away that three-zone protection” — an assurance that we’ll at least have some semblance of fair representation in Victoria for rural parts of the province.

If Peace River were to be amalgamated together, as could happen under this situation that the NDP have put together, that one riding — which would now have one MLA, I assume, under what this government is trying to put together — would be well over 200,000 square kilometres. Think about that: 200,000 square kilometres with one MLA. I said that my riding right now — which is way smaller than Peace River North, actually — my riding is the size of the Lower Mainland. That’s about 38,000 square kilometres, I believe. Now imagine it being over 200,000.

Imagine being in Prince George and being told that you have to drive from Prince George to Vancouver to see your MLA. That’s the situation of the distance that we’re talking about that would be set up. That riding, if the Peace Region were amalgamated together, would be from Jasper to the Yukon border, from Prince George, almost, to the Alberta border — everything on the other side of the Rockies, absolutely massive.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, yeah, the size of the United Kingdom. Larger, probably, than the United Kingdom, as my colleague from Peace River North was just mentioning.

What bothers me a lot is that when I have challenged members of the NDP on this, they say: “Don’t worry. In the act, we left in the fine print at the bottom, for the commission that’s going to do their work, that they can look at very special circumstances to deviate from the population variance.” Yet nobody is willing to stand in this House and say what that means. They’ve left it up to the commission. The commission has to guess what those very special circumstances might mean.

Before, there was no guessing involved. The commission was told, “There are three zones because of these circumstances. Yes, you might be able to move borders around,” but we were going to make sure that we had at least 18 MLAs, I believe, representing rural British Columbia in those zones. Now under this act, the NDP have said that we’re able to go from 87 to 93 MLAs, because of population growth — the majority of which, if not all, per se, has been in the Lower Mainland areas.

[5:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

There has been a little bit in Kelowna area, as I see the new Chair coming to sit down. There has been population growth there, too, but the majority of it has been in the Lower Mainland. So it’s probably fair to say, if there are possibly six more MLAs being added, I would venture to guess that the commission would say that the most appropriate place, once they do that, would be in the Lower Mainland.

Now we’re up to 93 possible MLAs. We’re talking about 18 of the 93 in rural British Columbia — 18 of the 93 that would represent 80 percent of the province that we were talking about. And because of these unique circumstances, there was a reason in the last commission work that those three zones were put in for protection.

Again, I think it’s important we highlight in this House that we have to recognize that under a democratic system, it doesn’t always mean every MLA is going to represent the exact same amount of people. The commission’s job is to try to make it as close as possible. I understand that. But we also have to recognize that is not always achievable because of the way our province is spread out — the way our province is designed, where the communities are.

Again, I said I’ve got four or five mayors that I’m dealing with, probably with competing interests. I have to navigate through that as an MLA when I’m representing them here in Victoria. You’ve got nine MLAs with one mayor in downtown Vancouver. So you want to talk about who maybe has a better voice in Victoria?

Imagine being a mayor in Tumbler Ridge who is competing with the other mayors in that riding on an issue. Thankfully, we get along on almost every issue, but not always, if it’s maybe trying to deal with where a health facility might be located or where a school might be developed. Obviously, there are the challenges of a mayor — as I know, having been one myself — to ensure you do the best you can for your community. But imagine one MLA representing all of those mayors. As I said, there are nine MLAs in here who all advocate for the same mayor and the same issues facing that community. Again, because of population — I understand that.

But we need to acknowledge…. It’s unfortunate, as I said in the onset, knowing that there are many members of the NDP who have had the fortune of travelling around this province and seeing some of the things that I’ve spoken about, that they haven’t been willing to stand in this House and defend this bill. I know there are NDP MLAs who are in the same situation, some even harder than mine when it comes to the geographical area that they represent.

You know, I look at Stikine. I look at North Island. I look at Skeena. I look at North Coast and, as I was just reminded, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who I do want to acknowledge and thank him for not heckling me so far during my speech. He must be biting his tongue, because I know how hard it is for him.

But I think it is important that we acknowledge these differences. I encourage the members of government to stand up and at least let the public know why they’re willing to remove this situation where we have 18 MLAs in rural parts of B.C. By the way, a bunch of those are NDP ridings, so we are not making this a B.C. Liberal–NDP thing. This is about fair and equitable representation because of the geographical size of rural B.C.

[5:35 p.m.]

It’s not about parties. Parties come and go. Platforms come and go and change. The public will decide who they support at the end of the day based on that. This is not about the geography and a specific party. This is about ensuring the people get fair representation. Nobody in this House got 100 percent of the vote. I know there are lots of people in my riding that didn’t support me, but I still represent them. We need to continue doing that.

Again, imagine having a riding, if we amalgamate the Peace region together, which would be 5½ times larger than the entire Lower Mainland, which has 48 MLAs — 5½ times larger. I just go back to what I started at the beginning about effective representation. We really need to understand that and what that means.

I know the commission has been given, I would say, a very difficult task. The reason why I say it’s difficult is because they have not been given a lot of guidelines, other than just saying: “You make the decisions, and by the way, we’ll let you decide what very special circumstances are.” I guarantee you there are at least 18 rural ridings right now, out there, that are going to be able to justify, in their opinion, what a very special circumstance is.

I know people in my riding have been very vocal. I won’t bother reading into the record right now the hundreds of emails, Facebook posts, that I’ve received. The letters from my regional district, letters from mayors who are absolutely appalled that we’re having this debate, because they are at risk of losing, in their opinion, fair representation. They already speak to the fact, as I mentioned, that they don’t feel it’s fair as it is. Imagine removing some of the MLAs.

I’m curious why the government hasn’t been able to stand up and defend the fact that their commitment under UNDRIP, it looks like, has not been accomplished through this as well. The reason why I say that…. I’m in treaty 8 territory, the entire northeast right now, which could be amalgamated, possibly — if the NDP had their way, I think — into one riding. Were all the First Nations in my region consulted, knowing that they might be losing their elected representative in this House? I would argue that the answer is probably no. But I’m still waiting for the NDP to stand up and justify it.

I’m going to end there because I could probably go on forever on this topic. It is something near and dear to my heart, understanding the challenges in rural British Columbia, the uniqueness that we face and the fact that people already feel like they struggle to have their voice heard. The way the NDP is setting it up appears to make that even harder. That’s the last thing for a proper democratic system, the last thing I would say that anybody in this House should be supporting. We want to make sure everybody in this House has their voice heard.

With that, I want to thank the House for allowing me my time on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: I have a list, but I also have the Leader of the Official Opposition, who has stood. I’ll recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition and advise the member for Boundary-Similkameen that he’ll be next, if you’re ready. Thank you.

S. Bond: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There is a lot going on in our province and in our world. There is good news. Today we learned that our COVID numbers are down, vaccinations are up, and people are continuing to be disciplined. We need to stay focused. People have made a difference. They’ve done everything that’s been asked of them and more — the vast majority.

But there is also heartbreak. As a province and a country, we have been shaken by the news of the discovery of a mass grave of 215 Indigenous children. There is so much to do. A call for action yesterday in this House, and today, questions about what steps will be taken. Powerful words in this place. Voices being heard from across British Columbia.

[5:40 p.m.]

There is also devastation, devastated by the news that once again this month, another horrific record was shat­tered: 176 overdose deaths. The highest number on record for April. The crisis continues.

You might ask why I reflect on that set of circumstances. Because today we’re being asked to talk about a bill — Bill 7 — in the context of all of the critical issues that British Columbians are facing. Yes, good news on the COVID front. We need to stay focused. Devastating and heartbreaking news. Yet, here we are, talking about Bill 7.

I’m pretty certain that most British Columbians today have no idea what Bill 7 is about, because British Columbians are tired. They are worried. They are sad. They are angry. They’re trying to sort out how they just get through today and move on to the next day. So many critical issues facing us as a province, many issues facing us as a country, issues facing us as British Columbians. So, it seems ironic that we’re standing up asking people to think about yet one more thing: Bill 7.

Well, Bill 7 matters. It matters a great deal. I very much respect the comments of my colleague who spoke prior to me. I know how passionate he is about his riding and his family and his constituents. I know that those words came from the heart. I appreciate that, and I hope that other members of this Legislature appreciate that.

This is a big province. It is not a one-size-fits-all pro­vince by any stretch of the imagination. That’s what we need to talk about today. This piece of legislation, while seemingly out of context when we’re talking about all the other things that are going on today, is absolutely critical to me and to the constituents that I represent.

There are very few things that I am as passionate about as ensuring that the constituents that I represent have the kind of representation that they need and that they de­serve. Even in the context of all the issues that we face, we discuss, we have to deal with, it is even more important that there is effective representation at times like this in our province.

This bill, as it stands, could have profound implications for the future of how British Columbians are represented in our province. The changes proposed in Bill 7 are far from the routine appointment of an Electoral Boundaries Commission to examine the current electoral boundaries and make alterations as needed to keep up with the changing demographics of our province.

Now, no one denies that that is an important consideration. But this bill as tabled will remove protections that have been put in place to ensure that rural and remote parts of British Columbia are represented fairly in this Legislature in a way that allows for their voices to be heard.

Specifically, this bill will remove statutory protections for three regions, large geographic regions in British Columbia. You’ve heard my colleagues describe the size of their ridings and what it takes to do their job well, and they do their jobs well. I am very proud of them. The regions are Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the north. The north — the vast geography that makes up the north.

This isn’t the first time I’ve had to stand in this chamber to speak to a bill on electoral reform. We should be absolutely clear. These regions have been protected because while they may have a lower population than the densely populated Lower Mainland, they are vast geographic regions, full of diverse people with differing interests, differing concerns, and they deserve to be effectively represented in Victoria.

[5:45 p.m.]

The Electoral Boundaries Commission itself says ef­fective representation is not simply anchored to the equality of population. A 2015 report said that factors like “geography, community history, community interests and minority representation” should be taken into account when deciding how to draw electoral boundaries. It ack­nowledges and leaves space for the fact that the needs of those of us who live in Prince George are different from those who live in Vancouver.

Our current electoral boundaries in rural B.C. recognize the unique circumstances of these places. The reality that while they may not presently have as large a population as other ridings, there is very little chance that the same degree of work and effort and effectiveness could be put in place if the boundaries are expanded to reach the proposed electoral quotient in some cases.

Of course, at the same time, we should also be clear about the fact it’s not just about rural British Columbia. It’s also about urban B.C., and we are prepared to stand up on this side of the House and say that. We understand that the cities of Surrey and Vancouver and those in the Fraser Valley have seen significant growth in recent years. Electoral boundaries do need to be adjusted to accommodate that growth. That does mean the potential of adding new ridings in some of these rapidly growing regions.

But it is about finding balance. I have colleagues in this Legislature who represent thousands of people in a very small geographic space. Those of us who represent northern or more rural ridings, more remote ridings, face exactly the opposite challenge. We have thousands of kilometres and a very small population.

I’m not embarrassed or ashamed to say that I approach this as someone who lives in an urban setting within a rural riding. Because while most people would not consider Prince George rural, the riding of Prince George–​Valemount certainly is. With almost 32,000 square kilometres, my riding is bigger than Massachusetts, bigger than New Jersey and, yes, it is bigger than Belgium. You may not know this, but in the Belgium Chamber of Representatives, there are 150 representatives and another 60 senators on top of that — all for the land mass smaller than Prince George–Valemount. Imagine that.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that we need that model, but we need to ensure that people in this province — whether they live in Dunster or Dome Creek, whether they live in Valemount, in McBride, in Loos or Crescent Spur, or in Hixon, all of those incredible parts of our province — have an MLA to represent their views in Victoria.

Whether you call it Prince George–Mount Robson, which is what it was called when I was first elected…. There were changes made. It’s now called Prince George–​Valemount. It’s my riding. I typically start out on a work day when we’re going to the Robson Valley at six in the morning, drive 3½ hours for a meeting at the end of my constituency, have those meetings and then drive 3½ hours back.

I’m not complaining about that. It is one of the most exceptional parts of British Columbia. I love that road. People say my car knows that road. In fact, my husband and I used to spend many, many hours in that car on that highway, getting to know the people, getting to know their issues, understanding why it’s important that we do not take Bill 7 for granted.

[5:50 p.m.]

It’s hard work to be an MLA, whether you’re an urban or rural MLA, and our constituents understand that. But I can assure you that I have rarely seen the kind of passion and energy and drive that exist when there is a concern about the loss of a rural riding. We saw it and experienced it — lineups of people at microphones in town halls across this province speaking passionately, talking about the importance of having their voices heard in Victoria.

One of the issues that sparked the most passionate res­ponse from people where I live was even the thought that their representation, the degree of representation that they have today, was potentially being threatened, that there would be reduced representation in some way — the amalgamation of a riding, the elimination of a particular seat. That would mean one fewer MLA that would be part of that very, very large region called the north.

I can remember hearing from constituents. It’s one of those things you hear a lot about when the circumstance occurs. I can tell you, not one person stood up and said: “I think we’re overrepresented.” I can assure you that was not a message that I heard or that the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the day heard. In fact, the fear and the concern about what might happen was real for people. Why? Because they already feel they are not connected to Victoria, to what happens in this place. In fact, I’ve heard countless stories of people who connect with government services. They say, “I’m calling from McBride,” and the person on the other end of the phone doesn’t know where that is.

British Columbians deserve better than that. You know, it may be that this is about inside-the-beltway kinds of discussions. It is so much more than that. The issue of rural representation is not going to go away. It will only become more pronounced. That’s why, after careful thought, after listening to people across British Columbia, safeguards were put in place to protect representation, going forward. With Bill 7, that disappears.

We talk all the time in this Legislature about how it’s our job to be the voice, to be sure that the voice of the people is heard here and that we serve British Columbians. Well, one of the things we need to do to preserve that service is to ensure that they have reasonable access to their elected officials.

I am incredibly proud of the fact that I serve what could be considered a rural-urban riding. It’s not just about Prince George proper. It’s about all those communities that surround it. They deserve the kind of representation that allows them to have adequate and reasonable access. There are issues with regard to transportation, with regard to communication, with regard to connectivity. All of those things make a difference. In my riding, we still have long stretches of highway that have no cell phone service, much less high-speed Internet.

Today we simply say this: we are prepared to stand up for those constituents. British Columbians matter. They matter. That’s why Bill 7 matters.

The second-to-last time we went through this and ridings were at risk, those of us who were in that position did not just hear from British Columbians in Prince George–Valemount. We actually heard from British Columbians across this province that said it is an important principle.

I would urge my colleagues in this House to stand up and say the same thing. That’s what British Columbians told us the second-to-last time we did this. That’s what this place is about. It’s about the opportunity for government to stand up and to say to rural and northern British Columbia: “We support you. We’re going to preserve your representation.” In fact, from my perspective, that’s absolutely critical.

[5:55 p.m.]

What have we heard from members on the opposite side of the House? Nothing. Let’s just let Bill 7 move forward. The protections that were put in place to ensure that all British Columbians had adequate and reasonable representation are being eliminated. Bill 7 is looking at, potentially, a way to reduce access and representation.

There are few things that I care more about than ensuring that if you live in a place like Dunster, British Columbia, you know who your MLA is and you can access that person and you can expect to do that in a reasonable and appropriate way. I can assure you that when I go home, I’m going to hear from my constituents about how important this piece of legislation is.

It shouldn’t just be an issue on this side of the House. There are members on the other side of this House that are going to hear that too. In those areas where the last two processes were, there was unprecedented engagement, not just on behalf of our caucus. There are members on the government bench that should be standing up today and speaking up for their constituents.

We had mayors. We had councillors, constituents, lined up at microphones. And what was the message? Preserve the number of ridings in the northern and interior parts of British Columbia. We deserve adequate, appropriate and complete representation.

That wasn’t just a message from Prince George–Vale­mount. The members from Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston, North Coast, Stikine…. I would assume that in the days ahead here, while the session still is underway, we’re going to hear them stand up in this place and speak up on behalf of the people who, through these previous processes, have said clearly how concerned they are about less access.

I think each one of us in this place considers the riding we represent the most beautiful, the most wonderful, the best riding in British Columbia. I know that I certainly feel that way about the place where I live. From one end of my riding to the other, you can experience the majesty of the mountains. You can be thrilled to see wildlife. It can also be a bit risky, depending upon the time of day.

On one trip, I remember coming back through the Robson Valley. Around every corner and over every hill, we would find some form of wildlife — 23 bears on one trip. We were excited. I still would say to my husband: “Pull the car over. We have to stop. We have to watch. We have to look.” The mama grizzly with two bears, the moose with three babies — spectacular. It never gets old, the beauty and the majesty of this province.

I can tell you that even to this day, over two decades in this Legislature, I still find it a humbling and incredible experience that when you put your name on a ballot, people choose you to represent them. They trust you to bring their concerns to this place. What I want to do is honour the choice that they’ve made by working hard on their behalf every single day. I was so grateful that the boundaries of my riding and many others in northern British Columbia were preserved so that we could do the best job possible for those constituents.

At the end of the day, the ability for MLAs to connect with constituents is vital to an effective democracy. As such, neither the number of constituents nor the size of the electoral district should serve as a barrier to British Columbians having access to the representation that they need and are entitled to. We need to protect the trust between elected officials and electors, not dilute it as this legislation seeks to do.

Bill 7 may seem inconsequential at a time with so many things facing our province, when we consider the magnitude and the seriousness of the issues British Columbians are grappling with every single day. But nothing could be further from the truth. My constituents and all British Columbians deserve to be heard, to be represented, to feel included in the decision-making process, to face those tough issues together.

[6:00 p.m.]

I understand the process that lies ahead. The decision to provide protection to specific ridings was not made lightly. It was made to reflect the province we live in — this incredibly vast, diverse place that we are so privileged to call home.

While my riding may be bigger than Belgium, I have come to know it and love it well. From Prince George to the Alberta border, to Hixon in the south and yes, even a stretch of Highway 16 west, each community and neighbourhood is different. It’s unique. Everyone who lives there deserves the chance to be heard.

Most people in this House — many people in this House, probably — and many British Columbians have probably never heard of the Dunster Ice Cream Social or the Hixon Fall Fair and Parade or visited the extraordinary Cranberry Marsh in Valemount or participated in Pioneer Days in McBride or, yes, spent time in the absolutely exceptional Chun T’oh Whudujut Ancient Forest. All of those events and places are unique. They’re special. So are the people who live there.

I’ll share one example with you. Ray and Lue Long are a couple that live near McBride, British Columbia. They’re seniors. They’re extraordinary. Lue is actually a former Olympian. She was an incredible athlete. They raise cattle. They have a garden. I am privileged to know them.

One of my favourite — well, most of the time — experiences is when I stop in to visit Ray an Lue Long on my way through the Robson Valley. A typical visit means I get welcomed in, the tea goes on and the cookies come out. We sit around that farm table. and I, as their MLA and now friend, listen to them.

Actually, if the truth be known, a lot of it is Ray grilling me about: “Why did you say that? What on earth are you doing? Why haven’t you done these things?” But that’s what representation is about. It’s about Ray and Lue Long at their table just outside of McBride. For me, Ray and Lue and countless other residents of Prince George–Vale­mount expect me to stand up for them. They expect me to speak up on their behalf.

Does Bill 7 matter? Yes, it does. It is so much more than drawing lines on a map. It’s about the diversity of the province we live in. It is about having effective, accessible representation. The protection was put in place for a reason: to ensure that wherever you live in this province, your voice will be heard. Bill 7 means that, once again, British Columbians like the ones I represent will have to make the case for what should be a given: equitable, accessible, effective representation.

I want to assure my constituents that together we will make that case. They deserve absolutely nothing less. As I’ve said, I am proud to represent the spectacular riding of Prince George–Valemount. It is diverse. It is beautiful. It is urban. It is rural. It is remote. The issues that the people who live there face matter. That is why protection was previously included in legislation.

Together, members of our caucus will stand up, one after another, in this House to share the stories of their ridings, to stand up for one another, for rural ridings and urban ridings.

Why? Because Bill 7 matters. It should matter to everyone in this House. Every single member of this Legislature should stand up and declare their position on Bill 7 and make sure that people in the constituency where I live understand the rationale for removing protection for their accessible, appropriate level of representation.

We will participate in the process. We will demonstrate that retaining rural ridings is the right thing to do. We will continually remind every member of this House that this is so much more than drawing lines on a map. British Columbians in every corner of this province deserve to be heard. You may not want to listen to my words, but I urge you to do this.

[6:05 p.m.]

I want you to think about Ray and Lue Long sitting at their table with their tea, talking to their MLA or, in my case, grilling their MLA, as the case may be. That is what every British Columbian deserves, and we’re going to stand up every single day for those British Columbians, the ones just like Ray and Lue Long.

R. Russell: I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate. I’ll first echo the comments of my colleague earlier that said this issue is near and dear to his heart. It certainly is something that is near and dear to my heart as well. Especially today, I guess before I start, it’s important to acknowledge that I have the pleasure to join the chamber today with my feet here on the ground in Grand Forks, in my own rural riding, my own rural community on the unceded territory of the nsyilxcən-speaking people. For obvious reasons, this is particularly important, I think, to recognize today.

I wanted to take the opportunity to weigh in and give a little bit of feedback on what I’ve heard so far in debate on this bill. I didn’t plan earlier today to join this discussion, but I felt like, especially after the discussion earlier today, it was a worthwhile responsibility, potentially, for myself.

I would open by saying I want to offer thanks to the members on all sides of the House. This, to me, so far, as a newbie in this job and in this role and in this chamber, has been one of the most interesting discussions I’ve had the privilege to listen in to and now be a part of. We’ve certainly heard a plethora of points being raised, a lot of commentary here. I have to say that for the first time on both sides of the aisle, much of the commentary I agree with. I think it is genuine.

I hope, or maybe more accurately, I should say I would put my request in with the potential future commission here that this commission takes the time to read the notes of this debate from Hansard. I say this, for a change, be­cause I feel like there has been a great deal of accurate and useful input put forward. But my concern here is that the debate has been focused at a discussion that the commission needs to hear rather than, as I understand the purposes of this House, debate the merits of the bill itself.

My read of this bill is such that it moves the decision out of the hands of partisan politics and politicians and into the hands of a non-partisan electoral commission. As was framed by a previous member, it’s left up to the commission, as they said, to determine what fair and equitable representation actually looks like. This, to me, is really the heart of the matter and something that I very strongly would support.

First off, also, I will say, I’m a bit of a geek, and I’m proud of that. So when we first entered into discussion around this bill, I took the data into a spreadsheet and started playing with the numbers just to have a sense of where different ridings fell out, at least based on the numbers that I had, which were, understandably, a few years old.

I want to make it clear that, at least from my own kind of back-of-the-envelope calculations, this isn’t the dramatically partisan disparity that is implied, I think, in the debate thus far.

If we look at the ridings with the lowest populations…. As the previous member mentioned, we all feel like our own ridings are obviously the most important, the most beautiful and the best. If we look at those numbers, we see that for my riding, which is clearly the most important, from my perspective, and lower populations, there are about 14 ridings there. Of those 14, five of those are NDP ridings, and that, to me, is not a wildly divergent kind of split between our two parties. The lowest two are, in fact, NDP ridings.

[6:10 p.m.]

Moving on from there, I guess I would say I have some faith — and hopefully not the faith of naivety as a new member of this House — that the debate as has been presented is going to be extremely evident to the commission. The notion that effective representation or fair representation in rural B.C. is not as simple as population is in no way going to be lost on anybody that is tasked with the responsibility of coming up with those recommendations.

I would argue that a more accurate presentation of what this debate has become is a question of whether we, as politicians, are better arbiters of what ridings deserve protection, or whether a non-partisan commission is a better arbiter of that decision. Why, for example, is a riding like my own, Boundary-Similkameen, actually unprotected, while a community an hour away to my east is protected? Keep in mind that my rural riding takes me far more than an hour to travel through and, I would say, is very rural. In my mind, these decisions are very much best in the hands of the least partisan people in this system.

The commission’s role, as I understand it, would be to be sure they hear the issues that have been brought up here. They hear the issues from across B.C., including rural B.C., and they get to know the nature of these ridings and come up with wise, well-thought-out recommendations to bring back to us as politicians and legislators.

If, as was mentioned just previously, this threatens the thought of regional representation, then I think we’re reading a different bill. I did go back just to read this bill again, and I feel like it’s worth going over the substance of it — which, for the record, does fit onto one screen on my computer.

I will take a moment just to highlight what I would say is the core premise of the bill, which says:

“For the purposes of section 3, in making proposals as to the area included in and the boundaries of electoral districts, or proposals to increase the number of electoral districts, the commission must be governed by the following principles: (a) that the principle of representation by population be achieved, taking into account” — here’s the important part, I think, for the purposes of this discussion — “(i) geographic considerations, including the accessibility, size or physical configuration of any part of British Columbia, (ii) demographic considerations, including communities of interest and the sparsity, density or rate of growth of the population in any part of British Columbia, and (iii) the availability and means of communication and transportation between various parts of British Columbia.”

There is obviously a little more to the bill, but frankly, not a great deal more. I would tend to argue that the bulk of the concerns that I’ve heard about this legislation are addressed by that simple clause within this legislation.

I would say that really this discussion is a question, as has been framed already, about effective representation or fair representation. But I would boil it down to a couple of questions, the first of which would be: who, in the words of the previous speaker, should be drawing the lines on the map? Should we have politicians dictating the outcome of where those lines are drawn, or should we have a commission that’s at arm’s length come back to us with the recommendations of where those lines are drawn?

If we are willing to recognize this fair representation means a non-partisan body to help us make those de­cisions in a more equitable way, we get to the second question, which is: how does that commission do an effective job of what my other colleague from Peace River South also noted is certainly a very difficult decision. That again, in my rookie understanding, is the hard work they have in front of themselves as a commission, not the work of this House.

I am a staunch supporter of rural B.C. I’m also confident that people are more important than politics. Representing constituents effectively absolutely requires that more than population be considered in that decision, as I think is captured by this bill. I believe that moving this decision into the hands of non-partisan experts, with an objective to make good recommendations about effective and fair representation in our province, is a good idea.

I’m in favour, as a staunch advocate for rural B.C., be­cause I think people are smart and more important than the politics of us telling them where and how to draw lines on the map.

[6:15 p.m.]

T. Stone: I’m pleased to rise and offer a couple comments, noting the hour. Maybe what I’ll do is just use five or seven minutes here to respond to the previous member, and then I’ll carry on with the rest of my comments at the next opportunity.

The member from Boundary I think said some important points. I certainly take to heart his comments around having faith in the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I certainly have faith in the Electoral Boundaries Commission. It is an independent entity.

He indicated very clearly, I think, that there is more that needs to be considered beyond simple representation by population. I’m certain he must be aware, in light of saying that, that it has been made very clear by the courts. It has been included in many previous reports on Electoral Boundaries Commission work, here in British Columbia and elsewhere in the country, that in addition to equal votes, equal population counts in ridings, there is also an important consideration that’s referred to as effective representation.

I think where we diverge on this piece of legislation is that the current act, the current piece of legislation that is in place, that is the law today, that is being amended with this bill actually includes protection for a number of constituencies in the interior and the north. The bill we are debating here today is about removing that protection.

Now, the previous member can say that he has great faith in the Electoral Boundaries Commission to nonetheless, with the removal of that protection, take into account the need for effective representation in rural ridings. I don’t believe that’s good enough for the people of rural British Columbia. I don’t believe that’s good enough for the people of the interior and the north. I don’t believe that’s good enough for constituencies like Peace River South. My colleague from Peace River South spoke eloquently earlier. My colleague from Peace River North will be, I believe, speaking to this piece of legislation as well.

That doesn’t do justice to the people in Nechako Lakes or North Coast or North Island and the many other constituencies in British Columbia that deserve effective representation. You cannot accomplish effective representation through hope — hope that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will do the right thing, hope that the voices of those who reside in rural parts of this province will be heard through the engagement and the consultation that is a feature of this process.

You cannot accomplish this by diluting people’s voices. You cannot accomplish that effective representation by affording an opportunity, which the removal of the protection would afford, to enlarge constituencies, to reduce the number of constituencies.

As the member for Peace River South indicated in his comments a little earlier this afternoon, he represents an area that’s about the size of Vancouver Island. The entire geographic size of Vancouver Island would fit in his constituency. If you take Peace River North and Peace River South and put them together, I think we account for about one-third of the entire land mass of British Columbia.

You just can’t achieve the principle of effective representation by simply saying: “We’re going to remove these protections that exist in the legislation today. We’re going to hope that voices from the interior and the north are heard and that their voices will be reinforced moving forward in terms of the number of seats they have and the boundaries of those seats in the areas where these protections take place.”

[6:20 p.m.]

Removing these protections means that some — not necessarily all, but some — of the people who live in the largely rural constituencies like Cariboo North and Cariboo-Chilcotin, like Peace River North or Peace River South, like North Coast or Nechako Lakes, Skeena, Fraser-Nicola, Kootenay West, Nelson-Creston, Columbia River–​Revelstoke, Kootenay East…. People who live in these areas, without these protections…. Some of these people are going to end up in a much larger riding. They’re going to end up effectively having their voices diluted, moving forward, without these protections.

Again, I’m not suggesting that that would be the case for everyone who lives in these protected areas. Frankly, the two Kamloops ridings — my riding, Kamloops–South Thompson…. Based on the population growth that has taken place in my constituency, I’m pretty confident that we’re going to go into the Electoral Boundaries Commission with two seats in Kamloops, and we’re likely to come out of the commission process with two seats.

There may be changes to boundaries. I certainly would not think it would serve people well in communities in the region that might find themselves put into Kamloops north or Kamloops south for no other reason than because a riding like Fraser-Nicola, right next door, southwest of my constituency, was eliminated, which is a very real possibility, or that Cariboo-Chilcotin, which is just north of Kamloops–North Thompson, is absorbed and disappears because there are no protections, moving forward, for these areas. I don’t think that would serve the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin very well.

But certainly, the two Kamloops ridings…. I’m quite confident, based on population growth, there will continue to be two seats in these areas and therefore continue to be effective representation, regardless of who the MLAs are for those two constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, I think I’ll leave my comments there for today.

Noting the hour, I reserve my place in this debate and move adjournment of the debate today.

T. Stone moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 in the afternoon tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:25 p.m.